The role of an interim govt

Democracy in Pakistan needs few more general elections in continuity to get matured enough that the government and the opposition pose some level of trust in each other in reaching consensus on the interim setup, instead of expressing fears that caretakers can influence elections.

The interim government has and must have a very limited role and it should not even try to influence the elections in any way. He or she has to be someone with unblemished record and no political ambitions. The government and opposition take time in picking up the right person for the right job.

Perhaps, the role of the interim setup needs to be further defined and must have very limited powers. But, he also needs to check and ensure that no outside factors try to influence

polls, as in the end his or her credibility would be at stake.

It is high time that the government and the opposition show confidence in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), as they themselves picked its chairman with consensus and empowered the ECP. A strong ECP and neutral setup can still minimise the allegations of political engineering, if it cannot abolish them completely.

If a consensus is not reached on the interim PM, as it happened in 2013, it would be an irony for mature political minds in the PPP and the PML-N. The role of the interim government is very limited in the election process, or even in transfers and postings of officials. its power could be further curtailed in future. Yet, the level of distrust or mistrust among the political parties always leads to controversies and crisis.

Even after passage of the 18th Amendment, political parties have evolved a neutral mechanism for the interim setup, unlike in the past; but, they could not reach consensus on the interim PM.

The 18th Amendment also delegated more powers to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), yet the government the opposition were unable to pose confidence in each other or in the ECP, though the ECP chairman had been nominated with consensus by the PM and the opposition leader.

The ECP also needs to assert itself and the superior judiciary needs to back the ECP, rather brining it under some kind of pressure. Former chairman ECP Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim tried his level best, but in the end faced criticism for not holding free and fair elections. Since he was a man of integrity, he had even told before elections both the PPP and PML leadership that he would quit soon after elections, which he did.

Now, we are in the third general elections since 2008. In the last elections, consensus was not reached between the PPP and the PML, despite having a friendly relationship.

Today, even if they reach a consensus on one name, there is every possibility that the third mainstream party i.e. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) would express its reservations.

So, the best possible way forward would be to further curtail the role of the interim government. It must not be allowed to influence elections in any form like restrictions on appointments or transfer and positions particularly in police, chief secretaries or home secretaries.

While the demand for holding elections under neutral setup had been there since 1977, when after political upheaval as a result of alleged rigging in polls, both the PPP and the PNA had agreed on holding elections under neutral setup. But, before they signed the agreement, military intervened and a martial law was imposed on July 5, 1977.

So, the concept of neutral setup or caretaker government was first conceived in 1977 by the PPP and the PNA. But due to long martial law of General Zia, democratic norms were tarnished.

Gen Zia, with the support of the then judiciary, not only introduced major amendments to the Constitution, but also brought the ECP under his control. The referendum of General Zia and elections on non-party basis clearly reflected the intention and control of Zia on the system.

Even 1985, general elections on non-party basis were boycotted by the opposition as they termed it

pre-poll rigging and political engineering by the hand-picked government and king's party.

When Gen Zia dismissed the government of Mohammad Khan Junejo in May 1988, it was challenged in the Supreme Court.

The SC termed the action illegal, but did not restore the government. Instead, it asked General Zia to hold elections under a caretaker setup. Zia promised elections, but till his death in a plane crash, he did not implement the SC order.

The 1988 elections were held under an interim setup, and the PPP was voted to power. But, the late Benazir Bhutto rightly expressed her doubts about the outside influence as reflected from the formation of the IJI and political engineering.

It was the first distrust in the caretaker setup. The 1990 elections were held under another interim setup, and the late Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi was made the interim PM. Events unfolding now clearly reflected the political ambitions of the caretakers as well.

Since the power to dismiss the government and nominate the caretaker rests with the president till 2008, doubts exist.

Later, former president, Asif Ali Zardari, in a landmark decision handed over all powers of the president to parliament.

Here arises a valid question: why the two sides – the government and the opposition -- trust each other while they are bound to appoint a consensus candidate as the interim premier.

If they still fail and later on regret, then it is a serious question about the level of distrust and lack of maturity on the part of our political leadership.

As far as the issue of hidden hands or political engineering is concerned, it could only be ended if the political parties start believing in themselves or show confidence and trust in each other.

The writer is a senior columnist and analyst of Geo, The News and Jang.

Twitter: @MazharAbbasGEO