A fleeting opportunity

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School

The conduct of peoples' elected representative during the in-camera security briefing to parliament has been severely wanting so far. So invidious seems the spirit of partisanship in our country that MPs representing different political parties simply fail to identify themselves as parliamentarians – the custodians of democracy who, when assembled in the parliament, collectively represent the sovereign will of an independent nation state. There seems to be no recognition within the legislature that under our constitutional scheme of separation of powers they constitute a separate pillar of the state. They are not only members of parties constituting the government or the opposition, but also members of an institution that is separate from the executive branch and designed to hold the executive accountable.

The country is burning partly due to its disputed role in the central theatre of the global war on terror and partly due to a vicious insurgency that is threatening its existence as a progressive Muslim state; its economy and treasury are in dire straits; the nation is depressed as a whole and many see the myriad problems as an existential crisis; and yet our parliamentarian cannot even momentarily quench their appetite for factional squabbling. Now that our parliament finally has an opportunity to critique, formulate and debate our national security policy, we witness a divided house marred by mediocrity that exhibits no ability, intention or resolve to drag the country out of the woods.

Have the proponents of democracy not been demanding that Pakistan's security doctrine be discussed thread-bare in the parliament to (a) develop a revised policy that is legitimized by parliament's stamp of approval, (b) develop a national consensus on how we wish to address the issue of violence on our borders and within our country by bringing the peoples' representatives on board, and (c) strengthen the democratic process by putting into effect parliament's authority to exercise oversight over executive policy-making. We have finally gotten the process right and that is some achievement.

But instead of developing a shared approach on how to consolidate parliament's authority to review state policies and exercise oversight over policy implementation – an authority that was usurped by non-representative forces that reduced parliament's role to that of a rubberstamp – all we see is political bickering over the format of proceedings. True to our grim tradition of the opposition devoting itself to the unconstructive opposition of all government actions, PML-N members have made loud noises and expressed disappointment over inadequate briefings while at the same time refusing to ask probing questions or identify vital information or aspects of the existing policy that they wish to be educated about.

Let us first revisit the context of this security briefing. It was supposed to be a remarkable event for two reasons. One, Pakistan is in a state of war where on the one hand it has committed itself to fighting a multinational war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban alongside the US and NATO, and on the other it is confronted with a devastating armed insurgency in the tribal areas that has claimed over ten thousand of its citizens. Coming out of a decade of dictatorial rule – where one man continued to devise the national security priorities, policy and strategy for this entire nation in the complex and challenging post-9/11 geostrategic and security environment – the nation had finally been afforded an opportunity to collectively take stock and charge of its security policy.

And two, even during democratic times security policy-making has continued to fall within the province of the military, which it has jealously guarded. The army chief together with his director general military operation presenting himself before the parliament for a briefing on the military strategy in force and to seek policy guideline in order to continue or change such strategy thus marked a break from the past and an inaugural chapter in our quest for civilian control of the military. Up until the now imminent threat of militancy rooted in an extremist and obscurantist religious ideology, the real threat to democracy in Pakistan came from lopsided civil-military balance. This briefing was therefore a progressive step to shift the balance in the right direction.

But let us not prematurely congratulate ourselves over the eternal return of democracy to Pakistan. We are still in the process of transition and without sounding alarmist let us just say that democracy is still on probation. Now that a democratic façade has been returned to the country, the onus of strengthening a representative system of governance lies with our elected representatives, our political parties, our civilian executive and our elected parliament. One argument used to explain the failure of democracy in Pakistan is that our Khaki praetorians have never allowed democracy to prosper by keeping the representative institutions weak, inept and maligned and by disrupting the democratic process at regular intervals and thus preventing it from taking root.

The counterargument however is that weak and inept civilian political leadership create circumstances where the military is forced to undertake fire-fighting missions and assume direct control of state power to pre-empt a collapse of state authority. As a country that has been dominated and ruled by the military for most part of its history, the former argument might be closer to reality. Nevertheless, our elected representatives and political parties must realize that probationers are confirmed based on performance. Whoever might be responsible for the fragile state of our democracy and our feeble culture of constitutionalism, our incumbent elected representatives now bear the burden of responsibility to ensure that virtues of democracy resonate across the country.

Our elected representatives must not repeat the tragedy of the past by squandering the legitimacy garnered at the polls through their dismal performance as part of the legislature and the executive. They must make certain that our democratic structures are seen as being representative of the wishes and wants of the average citizen and also capable of dragging the country out of the hole that it presently finds itself in. And in order to send out such a confidence-inspiring message to a demoralized nation, our representatives must rise above their factional affiliations and embrace their identities as legislators who represent the collective interests of our nation and not just the partisan interests of their respective parties.

The security briefing and parliamentary debate presently underway is a test as well as an opportunity that must not be bungled. It is a test of the maturity of our political representatives, their seriousness of purpose and their ability to transcend party interests to spearhead bipartisan measures in the larger national interest to develop moral clarity and consensus over Pakistan's desirable response to the scourge of terrorism and violence. And it is an opportunity to distinguish the legislature as separate from the executive and an equal branch of government, institutionalize the process of legislative control and oversight over executive policymaking, augment procedures that would lead to effective civilian control of the military, and put meaning into the largely academic concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

The outcome of the parliamentary briefing and debate needs to be twofold. One, to fulfil the immediate term responsibility of devising a comprehensive bipartisan security policy that is backed by an overwhelming majority of the members, together with a mechanism to oversee and review its implementation and efficacy over time. And second, to learn from this experience and create structures, procedures and capacity to build a tradition of informed and effective parliamentary review and oversight of national policies and government's performance. This is a tall order indeed. But then these are extraordinary times for Pakistan and our response to the challenges confronting us will define the character of the state we wish to live in as well as its longevity. The parliament must measure up to the trust and responsibility reposed in it by the nation. It still has time. All is well that ends well.



Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu