Sense of direction

With JUI (F), MQM, and PML (Q) once again out to test their gamesmanship, and ANP, PML (N), the Army, and the political-religious parties outside waiting in the wings, it seems Pakistan is all set to brace for another bout of political crisis - leaving us the people bewildered what the hell is the direction they are all moving Pakistan into!

That there is no sense of direction in what is happening or cooking to happen is not far from the truth. An 18th Amendment, a 7th NFC Award, autonomous status for Gilgit-Baltistan, or the Reconciliation mantra appear like in-connectible jots on a maze of unattended urgencies.

This is an attempt to refresh memories of us all, especially the politicians and the Armymen, with the sense of direction reached in 1973.

A constitution is never a political document. It is not to be used, or manipulated politically. Nor is it for the politicians to amend or suspend at their will. At best, a constitution is a theory of conduct both for individuals and institutions. In this sense, it is a moral document. Taking it otherwise is fatal to the soul of a constitution.

Thus, if a constitution is used and manipulated for political purposes, its moral tenor is lost. Likewise, if a constitution is amended and suspended at will, it is reduced into a political statement. This is the case in Pakistan.

Historically, in the sub-continent Muslim and Hindu communities’ leaders could not agree on a theory of conduct to rule their people. That constitutional failure led to the making of Pakistan and India.

In Pakistan, again its leaders proved they lacked moral insight and could not reach a theory of conduct. Instead, they continued fighting for political interests. So much so that in 1971, the chronic fighting of individuals and institutions dashing all the hopes to reach an agreed theory of conduct to rule both the wings finally resulted in the formation of another country out of Pakistan.

The period from 1947 onward witnessed ‘constitutional’ anarchy let loose. After about fourth of a century and an unhappy separation of half the Pakistan, the rest of the country came to have a Constitution in 1973. In this case, it was always late to mend.

But, the ruling party that gave (West) Pakistan a Constitution is the very party that disfigured the same constitution most. The constitution that was adopted on April 12, 1973, from May 8, 1974 to January 4, 1977, underwent seven amendments, six by the same assembly and the seventh by the next short-lived assembly of the same party. Obviously, from the very start the constitution could not achieve the status of a moral document and a theory of conduct as well. The acts belied the intentions.

Then, there was the Army, an all powerful institution, which never subscribed to any theory of conduct whatsoever. They created a moral vacuum in the country. The greatest damage they caused to this nation is not through the suspension or partial/total abrogation of the constitution; it’s the destruction of moral and social values. They are the perfect immoralists.

After them, it was leaders of the political parties who used their parties as pressure groups to achieve their motives. They were the political agents of various Pakistani elites who were out-and-out immoralists. They used the constitution to further their political and elitist interests.

Another party to this crusade against the constitution was the judiciary. They were the thoroughgoing immoralists and champions of a new theory of misconduct. For them, under necessity everything could be validated. No theory of conduct or no moral code could stop them from fulfilling the demands of the immoralists. The moral document was immorally brutalized by its very custodians.

However, with the emergence of an independent judiciary, supremacy of the constitution, rule of law, and fundamental rights were dug up and started to be upheld. Not only the theory of conduct but the code of conduct also became a matter of everybody’s concern. Somehow, if that awakened a civil society from its “directionless” slumber, on the one hand, on the other it did resuscitate the moral conscience of the people also.

Many a coalition made and broke after the February 2008 elections. These or any other coalitions are not an end in-themselves. What matters is whether this practice strengthens the constitution or weakens it as a moral statement. If a coalition breaks down such as the recent one, quitting of the JUI (F) from the government, there is little for the constitution to gain. In fact, all such moves trash the constitution into political triviality.

Though, the rule of law movement set the constitution of Pakistan to emerge as a moral document embodying a theory of conduct for all individuals and institutions strictly to follow, but no political party or no state institution and especially the Army sees it as such. Old habits die hard!

In view of this sense of a direction, the conduct of political parties and the Army is going to decide the fate of the constitution as a moral document is a misreading. It is for them to realize that it is the constitution which is going to decide their fate in the long run. Willy-nilly they will have to revert to the constitution as a moral document to compass their sense of direction if they want to survive. Their politics should have to be subservient to the theory of conduct the constitution represents.

The last three decades, especially, of trampling the constitution by the civilian and military usurpers prove that politics without a theory of conduct and without a moral code is worse than robbery and murder, and more than what was condoned under the National Reconciliation Ordinance. Hence, in order to prove their worth, political parties and the Army must check with their political sense of direction. Otherwise, they are in a moral vacuum and may meet moral death!

Note: This article was completed in December 2010.

Crimes and the political alibi

“I am a politician; I cannot commit any crime; I am perfectly innocent!”

That is how, as we know at least in Pakistan, politicians argue. That manner of political self-defense clears the two-way traffic: criminals may become politicians; and, politicians may become criminals. Pakistanis have enough of both. And the breed is multiplying like rabbits. All the more, species belonging to other realms of social, economic, military, cultural, religious have started aping the politicians. They have learned the art of politics from them. That’s a hundred percent fool-proof method of overcoming any odds.

Also, that has rendered all the systems of accountability inefficacious. Why? Because, and it is awfully baffling that, all the systems of accountability are conceived, detailed and legislated by the criminal politicians or political criminals. Who can forget the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO)? And it is these politicians, tainted with criminality, who appoint the heads to these accountability systems, just like Chaudhry Qamar Zaman, has been appointed Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Just like the leader of the opposition party in the National Assembly, Khurshid Shah, has been made Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Such systems are a product of the political-criminal complex in Pakistan.

The latest episode from this complex unfolded a few days earlier when on May 29 an anti-corruption court issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and Makhdoom Amin Fahim, former commerce minister and a member of Gillani’s cabinet. Both are senior leaders of Pakistan Peoples Party. Seven others include the list of the accused in this case which allegedly involves major irregularities of Rs.7 billion in granting freight subsidies to fake trading companies by the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP). Previously both politicians were issued three notices to appear before the court. As the notices were ignored (note their arrogance!), then bailable warrants were issued. Now non-bailable warrants have been issued with hearing adjourned till June 17.

The same day the former prime minister issued a statement and said: no case in this country was completed without implicating him whether it was the case of OGRA, NICL, NRO, TDAP or Haj scam. He added: the beneficiaries of the NRO had been exonerated but he was still facing the music. His political alibi was worded thus: ‘He asked the government to avoid crossing the limits of victimization and unleash it to the extent they could also bear it tomorrow. They had no stomach to tolerate even the fraction of what was going on against him.’

No sooner this news item flashed than the political machinery of Peoples Party got switched on and statements started pouring in the newspapers and TV channels to beat the drum of political victimization. Very next day co-chairman of the PPP and former president Asif Ali Zardari ‘deplored the victimization of former prime ministers Yousaf Raza Gillani and Raja Pervez Ashraf and former federal minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim behind the façade of accountability as witch-hunting.’ He warned: ‘that bodes ill for the politics of tolerance, accommodation and reconciliation.’ 

This narrative of Political Victimization is very much typical and repeats itself on various occasions and for various personalities. Now it’s Asif Ali Zardari’s turn to mouth it: in his statement he pretended to be shocked while, according to him, the PPP was seeking to protect the democratic system through political reconciliation the government was chasing political opponents and thereby undermining the unity of political forces. His tirade is totally based on political alibi: he said that decisions in national policies whether in the rental power plants or subsidies or concessions in importing commodities were taken collectively and transparently by the cabinet in the light of objective realities and singling out the prime minister is patently wrong and smacks of political victimization. Also he found a poignant similarity between the hounding of Benazir Bhutto in late 1990s for the decisions jointly taken by the cabinet at the time and the chasing of Yousaf Raza Gillani, Raja Pervez Ashraf and Makhdoom Amin Fahim now for decisions taken by the cabinet. He advised the government to review its policies and stop witch-hunting and victimization of political opponents.

This narrative of political victimization amounts to this: all the decisions politicians make while they are in government, whether they prove to be good or bad, must be treated as unquestionable; since by dint of their electoral mandate they are innocent; and more than that by virtue of their being politicians and representing the people they cannot make any wrong decisions. In short, in their capacity of being politicians, they are infallible. And while they win elections, they place themselves beyond every norm, value, principle, and morality and law; thus, their infallibility perfects. Gillani’s and Zardari’s words quoted above are based on these presumptions. They may be termed as the Political Alibi.

Thus the political alibi claims the politicians must be considered and treated as beyond the law of the land. That means they are King, who used to be law unto himself. So they, the politicians of Pakistan, are law unto themselves. No need to try Yousaf Raza Gillani, Raja Pervez Ashraf, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, or Asif Ali Zaradri for any wrong-doing; they are infallible; they are themselves law of this land.

Or otherwise, if this or any other government think of trying or tries them, their narrative by implication means to say that, they will not protect the democratic system; they will give up political reconciliation; and so on. In this sense, the political alibi conceals threats of undermining the system. Just as psychological alibis provide criminals with excuses for their crimes, such as harming others, or murders in the name of honor, etc; in the same way, politicians use the political alibis as excuses to hide their inefficiencies, incompetencies, corrupt and dishonest practices, scamming, nepotism, cronyism, and misappropriating the public exchequer.

Finally it may be reminded that the law of Pakistan provides for no such alibi to any one, be they politicians. That was why they took recourse to the NRO; otherwise, such a law would have come to their rescue. If any charge is made against any politician, he / she should present himself / herself in the court of law and prove his / her innocence. Political alibi is no way of proving ones innocence; it may prove the guilt, instead!

Note: This article was completed on June 2, 2014.