The scramble for power

Like it or lump it, the democratic façade is no more than a house of cards – always a kick away from falling apart. By all accounts, civilian institutions must reign supreme. Nevertheless, one ought to be mindful of the chasm that exists between supremacy as a claim or a wish and supremacy as a fact.

Dialogues and debates are important in bringing to light as well as clearing up matters. But they are, at best, of marginal utility in bridging the chasm.

England in the 16th century saw a nerve-shattering power tussle between the king and parliament. Each camp came up with cogent arguments in support of its position. In the course of the antagonism, the royalists commissioned the services of the philosopher and the king’s tutor, Thomas Hobbes. The outcome was ‘The Leviathan’, which is one of the most eloquent and influential treatises on politics ever written. Understandably, Hobbes defended absolute monarchy with full force against the claims of the constitutionalists. Curiously enough, he also did away with the distinction between the de jure and the de facto sovereign. 

Although Hobbes believed that all institutions and rights derived their legitimacy from royal decrees, the king, on his part, was entitled to govern only as long as he remained on the throne. The moment he was given the boot, his legitimacy came to naught. Laws and customs are important as a party stakes its claim to power. But it is force or strength that eventually tips the scales. In the words of the philosopher, “covenants without the power to enforce them are but words”. As a result, a government does not deserve to be in office if it can’t hold it. Not surprisingly, the philosopher was accused of having stabbed his royal pupil in the back.

As Hobbes has stated and as Pakistan’s own political history bears out, the scramble for power is red in tooth and claw. Here the questions of morality or of law take a backseat as each side challenges the very assumptions on which its adversary builds its arguments. What is manifestly undemocratic or unconstitutional in the eyes of one party, is out-and-out legitimate in its antagonist’s book. One only needs to look at the conflicting stances taken on former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification at the hands of the Supreme Court to confirm this thesis.

It is in this context that Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani’s impassioned plea, which was first made in Quetta, for a dialogue among the leading institutions under the 1973 constitution needs to be seen and evaluated. The proposed dialogue seeks to put in place a framework to ensure the smooth working of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary and arrive at a consensus on key constitutional issues. A few days later, the Senate threw its weight behind its presiding officer’s suggestion and invited the leadership of the three institutions for a dialogue.

At the bottom of the dialogue proposal lurks the painful feeling that neither has parliament been accorded its due status nor have civilian institutions been accepted as paramount. Of the three organs of the state, the legislature seems to be the weakest when, as the repository of the popular will, it should be supreme, with all other institutions being accountable to it. By the same token, elected institutions are under the thumb of the powers that be when they ought to be calling the shots. The dialogue, as its proponents and sponsors see it, will help correct this alleged aberration.

To say the least, all is not well among the institutions. But this is not a new problem that has crept up all of a sudden. In a country with a rich history of military coups, it is the armed forces that have piloted the ship of the state either directly or indirectly. The judiciary has also waded into the political arena by upholding military takeovers as well as the dismissal of the popularly-elected assemblies by civilian presidents. Likewise, the executive has sought to control both judiciary and parliament. At times, the courts have struck back by endeavouring to keep the executive in check.

How can one account for this inter-institution conflict? Can it be put down to the absence of a relevant constitutional or legal framework? Do the institutions scramble because they are working in a legal void? Has the judiciary not been well-versed in the law of the land and jurisprudence? Are the men in uniform not aware that they are legally subordinate to civilians? Is the executive not alive to the fact that it is a creature of parliament?

Well, the law exists and each institution knows very well what it is. The legal framework and the role of each institution, of course, can be further clarified. Likewise, the constitution can be further amended, as suggested by Nawaz Sharif, to tone up the powers of parliament, particularly to divest the courts of their competence to send the lawmakers home at the drop of a hat.   

But these measures are not likely to make a big difference. The subversion of the constitution since its inception has been an act of high treason that is punishable with death. But that did not hold Ziaul Haq or Pervez Musharraf back from upsetting the applecart of democracy. Not only that, Musharraf has, from time to time, justified his coup on the plea that the basic law of the land can and must be set aside if necessary to save the state – just as he did on October 12, 1999.

Likewise, Article 58 (2)(b) of the constitution, which empowered the president to dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion, was widely regarded as a lethal threat to the supremacy of parliament and democracy. The 18th Amendment has scrapped this article. But did that make elected institutions supreme? At present, Article 62 and Article 63, which together prescribe the eligibility criteria for the legislators, are as much in the limelight as Article 58 (2)(b) had been in the past for pretty similar reasons. Yes, those articles need to be amended. However, the amendment on its own would not make for the triumph of democracy.  

The issue at hand is not entirely legal, much less ethical. According to Hegel, in a controversial situation, each side considers itself to be totally in the right and its antagonist wholly in the wrong when in point of fact each is partly wrong and partly right. But being right or wrong is merely an academic question. One notion or movement defeats another not because it is right but because it has greater force behind it. Herein lies the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful change-maker.   

In the scramble for power, democracy does not have guns or tanks to count on. The principal weapon available to is popular support. No earthly power is stronger than the people. But for the people to put their weight behind democracy, they must have high stakes in the preservation of the democratic order.

In the absence of such stakes, the revival or ouster of the democratic order – or, for that matter, the induction or exit of a government – will make little difference to the vast majority of them. They may even welcome change in the hope that the new dispensation will make things better for them. 

If parliament or other civilian institutions wish to be paramount, not only on paper but in real terms,  they need to look beyond dialogues and constitutional amendments – important though they are – to win the unshakable confidence of the people. Public confidence has to be earned.

The writer is a freelance contributor.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com