LAHORE: Pakistan Peoples Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari took part in a dialogue on the topic of 18th Amendment and Federalism at the LUMS here on Friday.
According to a press release, the PPP chairman, when asked about the most consequential changes that the 18th Amendment brought, said the right to education, the right to information and the right to fair trial were not part of constitutional rights until the 18th Amendment. The restoration of parliamentary supremacy along with the 18th Amendment offered a fairer system of appointing judges in Pakistan, which included a parliamentary committee with members of the government and the opposition and reputable members of the bar association.
He said the passing of the 19th Amendment was frankly caused by the judiciary, blackmailing the government, as had we not done that, the entire 18th Amendment would have been called into question.
It's a fallacy that the bureaucrats in Islamabad are in a better position than those who are closer to people that elect them. “Can we say that labour rights, education and healthcare before 18th Amendment were in a better position than today?
Bilawal said Pakistan is a country where people are from diverse background and federalism is the system which suits countries like us. We tried one unit as well but unfortunately lost half of our country. After the dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq, our constitution was the only constitution which had a name of a dictator in it. So it was 2010 when we reached consensus on amendments.”
Talking about the 2010 consensus, he said no one else could do it and lots of political parties and dictators tried to reach that consensus even through handpicked parliaments. He said that along with 1973, 2008 was also a traumatic year for Pakistan and “we have confidence and stability now that we did not have in 2008 and the 90s”. “At the time, the entire country was suffering terrorist attacks and my own mother was assassinated along with riots while the international media proclaimed Pakistan as the most dangerous country in the world. I think these traumas encouraged political parties to sit together and reach consensus.”
“Today we take devolution for granted and we tend to forget that the concept of nationalist movements and separatism movements were second only to terrorism in Pakistan. If you had a headline about bomb blasts from extremists, you also had a follow-up headline about Pashtun nationalism movements and Baloch nationalism. I am not saying that those issues have gone away, but these challenges to the state of Pakistan have been addressed through devolution of power and the 18th Amendment.”
What allows this argument to take place is the fact that not all provinces have had the same commitment to devolution and have not followed the same path because obviously there were legislations that were supposed to follow up. Devolution was supposed to get into effect by 2015 and “we saw an apathetic government at the time but now we see a hostile government”.
“No matter what the federal government wants, they cannot go after your education and your healthcare. That is a responsibility of the provincial government. We can argue about the power and scope and how much local government setups should have, there is absolutely room for improvement in Sindh as well but I would just like to state that the only province in the country with a local government in place is the Sindh province.”
“This is a fantastic mix of cultures and ethnicities, languages, religions and a multitude of people that make up Pakistan and the Pakistani identity. For me, the Pakistani identity is just as much as Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his struggle for Pakistan as much as the Indus Valley Civilization that stretched from the coast to the Northern Areas of Pakistan. Somebody in Gilgit-Baltistan or Skardu is just as much a Pakistani as I am and the people in Gwadar are.”
“I will not dispute the fact that about 40pc of us live in Kachi Abadis. Karachi sees the sort of immigration that no other city in Pakistan sees. We see internal immigration from the province, other provinces and Karachi is the most welcoming city in Pakistan. Where are these people going to live? They are going to live on encroachments and Kachi Abadis. What is the response to that? We should be providing them with facilities that are their rights, whether it is infrastructure, healthcare or education. Our history shows a hostile approach to Kachi Abadis. We have a policy from the judiciary that has banned the regularization of Kachi Abadis, and I think this is a flawed policy as we cannot ignore those who live there.”
“We want cooperation between the provinces and the federation. The judiciary in Pakistan has individuals that have worked through different constitutional systems. It is unfortunate when we see decisions coming from the judiciary that instead of strengthening the constitution or democracy weaken it.
There was a conflict between the provincial and federal governments about the appointment of the Sindh IG. In that case, we have a short order from the Supreme Court of Pakistan that says that this is a power of the provinces that allows us to go forward with the process. From the same quote, we have a long order that says no, it is the joint responsibility of both governments. Such contradictions create confusions.”
The Pakistan Peoples Party in the last election doubled its seats from the previous election, but we obviously have a long way to go. I think that the idea that the PPP cannot speak to an urban population is bizarre because the PPP fundamentally is the only party in the political spectrum that has historically looked after the lower class, the poor and Kachi Abadis and these are in the cities. Labour unions have been dismantled, student unions are banned in Pakistan, so what did the PPP which was founded in the cities rely on? “We fought shoulder to shoulder with the people to bring about the 1973 election results or the 1988 results.
When asked about student-led initiatives and student unions and politicizing campuses, Bilawal said: “We as a civilization and people used to fight over everything and then we decided to have elections and elect representatives to avoid disputes, and this is a democratic theory which is studied. So, historically it is a dispute resolution mechanism.”
