Pak polity – racing backwards

So to say, in about 70 years, the political gains Pakistan’s polity has been able to make are dismal! Pessimistically, it’s NOTHING! Optimistically, it’s merely the Constitution that itself came to be agreed upon about 25 years after the country’s emergence on the map of the world. That casts a heavy doubt on the credence of Pakistan’s polity. Politically speaking, things stand in the same mould now they stood on the first day. The final verdict on the quality of the Pak polity may thus be worded: The citizens still live at their own risk in a country which is consuming itself by its own pseudo-nationalist, religious, militarist rhetoric!

No wrangling, the fact is that no politician and no political party find the constitution and its provisions tolerable to their will and temperament; they trample them whenever they see any of it obstructing what they want to do or to achieve. Not only that, they make use of it against its spirit; amend it at their will; or suspend it whenever they do not need it; ignore it when it doesn’t serve their purpose; and validate any amendments stuffed into by the military dictators. To the Paki politicians, the constitution is like a toy!

The latest example in this regard is the ruling party’s attempt to weaken and tame the higher courts whose newly obtained sort of independence proves to be a thorn in their heart. One parliamentary committee is already busy formulating such proposals which may help cut the judicial panel down to size. No doubt, all the parliamentary parties will be on the same page to bring the judges back into their pockets. Hopefully, if the civil society organizations especially lawyers fail to stop this onslaught of politicians against the judiciary, once again there will emerge judges of compliant character inside the High Courts and Supreme Court. There is one more hurdle to it; it’s the Supreme Court itself, which may send back the amendment (thus passed) to the parliament for review, if it does not find sufficient grounds to annul the same.

Hence, one very important gain obtained by the citizens of Pakistan, i.e. sort of independent judiciary, which is in fact an essential part of the constitutional scheme for the country to run, is going to be lost to the politicians’ lust for absolute power. That speaks volumes about the state of the polity in Pakistan! That leaves no hope alive that the Paki politicians and political parties will ever learn one or two things. How unfortunate! After about 7 decades they are still intent upon running a country of more than 180 million citizens like a principality! Everything, be they moral or social values, or rules and laws, is like something they must break and trash in their Ashraafist vein. That’s their way!

In 2013, for the first time one civilian government completed its constitutional tenure, general elections were held and a new government sworn in. No doubt, it should be a matter of routine in a democracy, not something both notable and noticeable; however, given the Pakistan’s political history where no civilian government was allowed to rule for its full tenure, it’s a Herculean achievement. In the midst, another event of unprecedented magnitude and significance took place: a usurper general was brought to the court for the highest crime allegedly committed by him, i.e. of suspending the constitution of the country; the case is sub judice. Both of these happenings may be overlooked or underestimated in the heat of the moment; which otherwise must be reckoned as the steps forward, no matter how small, as far as political evolution of Pakistan is concerned.

It is in the above-discussed context that both Inquilabi and Azadi Dharnas which took the capital sort of hostage this August need to be seen and explained. Whatever both of these parties, i.e. Pakistan Awami Tehreek of Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf of Imran Khan, and their allies, in or out of the state, aim to achieve and for that to achieve whatever they do and are doing need to be weighed against the gain of political evolution for Pakistan. Will that especially what the PTI is aiming at help Pakistan’s polity to evolve or not? Or, will it push it backwards? That’s the crucial question which must be answered by all having any concern for Pakistan!

Although the PAT concluded its Inquilabi Dharna at the end of last month, it is still not out of the game; and no doubt it has declared its parting of ways from the PTI and Imran Khan, it may join the 30 November call of the PTI to stage another Dharna in Islamabad, and be back in the game. That’s the same politics like of which both have been playing in the month of August this year when they were planning their marches to move together and when they landed in the capital and played their tricks in unison, till the PAT left the capital late in October. Under the circumstances, it may be conjectured that they may join hands again. That means the race to the corridors of powers is intact, and that there is no doubt about it this struggle is non-political.

How this struggle for power fares vis-à-vis the political evolution of Pakistan is the real problem to be dealt with! In addition, regardless of the apprehensions of majority of political analysts about the sponsored nature of the PAT and PTI’s offensive struggle, it may be suggested that what is more important is not who is behind them but what impact they are having and may be having in future on the political evolution of Pakistan. As to this, the writer’s considered opinion goes like this: The way PAT and PTI are conducting their fight is certainly impacting the polity of Pakistan extremely negatively: first, it’s distracting and confounding the constitutionalities; and second, it’s presenting no competitive challenges to other political parties including the ruling ones in a positive sense to move forward, it’s detracting them instead. That’s pushing the Pak polity race backwards!

Note: This article was completed on November 19, and was originally posted on November 27, 2014.

Why Pakistan is not a viable state?

Better to start with two clarifications: First, this piece does not raise the question of Pakistani state’s viability in the sense Pakistan’s Leftists and liberals are wont to discuss it. They say something like that: It’s unviable because it was created by the British in line with their policy of Divide and Rule; It’s unviable because it was created by the narrow-mindedness of Hindus or the Congress, or the stubbornness of Muslims or the League. They also hold that: It’s unviable because religion is never the basis of any state. The writer prospectively believes that states are not rational entities; they may come into existence, and disintegrate and disperse into more entities with or without any rational justifications. It’s like individuals or groups of human beings who want to live separately for any concrete or imagined grievances or none at all that states are born and withered. The crux of the argument is that what’s important is not how and why new entities of states emerge, what’s fatally important is how the newly emerged states live, grow and perform on the scale of their citizens’ rights and well-being.

Second clarification tries to address the universally prevailing view of Pakistan as a failed or failing state. This view derives its arguments mostly from political and economic realms. It’s a complex argument comprising many a heterogeneous theses. For instance, it raises such issues: Military’s hegemony vis-à-vis civilian and political affairs; Intelligence agencies’ role in political and state’s affairs; Absence of democratic values and democratic polity; Centre’s hold; Provincial disharmonies; Ethnic resentment; Linguistic discords; Economic subservience of lower classes; Inefficient state machinery; Separation of the East Pakistan as Bangladesh; etc. Various combinations of such politico-economic factors invite the epithet of a failing and disintegrating state for Pakistan. The writer has nothing to do with this view either.

The above-discussed factors do make sense of what has been and is happening right now in Pakistan. One may quip: The political drama being played at the moment in Islamabad proves the unviability of the state of Pakistan! The writer wants to push the argument deeper into the political abyss Pakistan has been thrown into; and, aims at going beyond the constitutional argument for the viability of a state. That no doubt applies to the first two decades or so of Pakistan’s history, when there was a display of various constitutions appearing and disappearing on the political celluloid. Why this was the case then that now a constitution was enforced and now it stood abrogated? It is here that the argument of this writer formulates itself. Certainly it was not mere geographical, political, ethnic, linguistic, or economic differences which were responsible for the lingering constitutional crisis facing early Pakistan. It was something more and other and different than that which caused that constitutional impermanence. In fact, it was that “something” which lied behind and resulted in the formation of Bangladesh.

But what about the four decades (and the fifth lapping to this day) which lived through the company of a constitution promulgated in 1973? Where had gone that “something” during that constitutional intactness? Of course, the devil did not vanish then, but became distributed in details. The constitution was verily there, but seldom enforced and followed in letter and spirit. Up till now, it has been operated upon by three openly declared Martial Laws (1977, 1999, and 2007). As is believed and upheld by many analysts that even when the army is not in the saddle, in certain matters especially and otherwise generally it keeps the reins in its hands. Be that as it may, it is politicians the responsibility lies with whom to run the affairs of the state in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and it is they who criminally share that with others, whoever they are. Not only politicians collude with the army and intelligence agencies, but they when in power do not bother with the dictates of the constitution. Let it be mentioned here that it completely excludes the spirit of the constitution, more significant than its letter, which never finds any followers in politicians. No denying that both usurpers and lawful rulers treat the constitution in a manner as if it is there for them to manipulate and not to abide by and follow in letter and spirit. Again it is that “something” which may clearly be seen underlying here in this type of anti-constitutional politics.

What’s that “something?” I would call it that minimum consensus which is necessary for any community of people to form into a political entity, i.e. a state. May it be noted here that it touches the boundaries of the notion of a social contract, but in itself it is not a social contract. In fact, when a community of people comes to institute a state, they first need to agree as to this intention that they are to be together in a state where whatever laws are to be made they will abide by them. That is that minimum consensus! It may be termed Writ of Law. Here it is taken for granted that not all the people may be in agreement with this or that law, and that’s natural; and that those who do not agree, even they are bound to follow that law, though they may try to amend, nullify or replace it with one of their choice. So, before a people enter into a social contract, they require a minimum consensus that whatever laws are enacted, regardless of their agreement or difference with them they will follow them.

Contrary to it, now and then this or that group of people, which does not agree with a set of laws, and instead of trying to get them changed in a prescribed manner, comes to violate and challenge that minimum consensus which ensures the intactness of that political union they are part of. That makes that political entity or state unviable. It is in this sense that the state of Pakistan is unviable, and presently it is PTI and PAT which are trampling that minimum consensus in the name of Azadi and Inqilab. Pakistan’s political history of about 7 decades proves that point. Be it prior to the 1973 constitution or after it, that minimum consensus has always been at stake. It is at stake now also!

Note: This article was completed on September 11 and was originally posted in October 2014.

Islamabad sit-ins – who is the culprit

In the matters of running the state of Pakistan, penetration of politics, politicians and political considerations have marred the capability of the state to think clearly, act accordingly and punish promptly; which has weakened it to such an extent that in most of the cases the state is conspicuous by its absence, resulting in increasing anarchy in the country. It was back in 1953 that Justice Munir Inquiry Report concluded thus: “And it is our deep conviction that if the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order, without any political considerations, one District Magistrate and one Superintendent of Police could have dealt with them. Consequently, we are prompted by something that they call a human conscience to enquire whether, in our present state of political development, the administrative problem of law and order cannot be divorced from a democratic bed fellow called a Ministerial Government, which is so remorselessly haunted by political nightmares. But if democracy means the subordination of law and order to political ends – then Allah knoweth best and we end the report.” (Justice Munir Inquiry Report 1954, P. 387)

The problem has now complicated so much so that a thick layer of confusion prevails from the highest courts to the lowest functionary of the state. The diagnosis Justice Munir Report made is though still valid; however, the effects of the disease the Report diagnosed have shifted the ailment to another vital area; i.e. the earlier disease has given rise to another one more fatal, i.e. how to fix responsibility. Let it be stated here that the fault lies not with laws as such, but more with their implementation. All the thinking regarding the implementation of laws, rules and regulations that exists now in every organ and institution of the state lacks clarity as far as fixing of responsibility is concerned.

With this preamble, this piece tries to analyze the political discourse taking place on the issue of Islamabad sit-ins of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek. The other day, after the disclosures of Javed Hashmi regarding the involvement of both PTI and PAT in a conspiracy to topple the present government of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, which allegedly had the sponsorship of certain retired officials of Army and ISI, General Mirza Aslam Beg (R) managed to present himself to a prime time TV talk show to expose another bigger conspiracy behind the sit-ins. The Big Bang he may have hoped to make by his revelations failed to release any impact. His utterances were no different from the statements of religious politicians who now and then see the hand of India, or America or Israel behind any noticeable occurrence happening in Pakistan. He tried to name US, UK, Canada and Iran as the conspirators behind the Islamabad sit-ins; he said these countries wanted martial law and anarchy in Pakistan and that the incumbent Chief of the Army Staff foiled their plot. That at best may be termed as an attempt to deflect the burden of responsibility which Javed Hashmi’s revelations put on the Army via retired security officials.

Since Azadi and Inqilab Marches of PTI and PAT started, elements in civil society and the media, and some politicians expressed their belief that the same was sponsored, as they dub it, by the establishment. Thus every development that took place in the Red Zone, be it the coming of the marchers to the Red Zone, their forcible entry into the premises of the Parliament building, their attack on the Prime Minister House, their short but significantly symbolic occupation of the Pakistan Television Headquarters, their leaders’ daily tirades tarnishing the every semblance of the writ of the state, was interpreted in the light of that belief. Thus according to such elements the culprit is the establishment, or , the retired officials of the establishment.

I have every so often reiterated that the Pakistani mind has lost a very precious function, i.e. the function of common sense. While fixing responsibility, it does not see who is the perpetrator of an act, what it tries to focus its attention on is who is behind him, as if the perpetrator is not the one who is responsible for that act, the responsible for that act is one who is behind him and has exhorted him to do the act. No doubt, law takes into account the one also who exhorted and / or abetted one to commit a crime, but it puts the burden of responsibility mainly on one who commits the crime.

It’s a social and moral case: I use an example to illustrate this fallacious thinking; that if a person asks another person to jump into a well, and he jumps into the well, who is one who should be framed with responsibility for jumping into the well? Practically, the most prevalent view in Pakistani society is: one who asked him to jump into the well! That view has taken over the commons sense thinking in every domain of the state and social life. It is like that mother who puts the blame of making his son an addict on others, and treats her son completely an innocent soul. That’s the way responsibility is put and fixed in Pakistan. One may object in Pakistan responsibility is never fixed. That’s another chronic malady the state of Pakistan is afflicted with from the day one. The present piece tries to highlight the fact that a new ploy has been developed to thwart the issue of fixing responsibility: put responsibility on everyone or on one who is not the main culprit. That’s the state aristocracy’s way of avoiding responsibility for anything done!

Hence, whether or not, it is the retired officials of the Army or any intelligence agency as Javed Hashmi blamed, or the USA, UK, Canada or Iran, or the establishment as is alleged, or any other conspirators, who are behind the the PTI and PAT’s sit-ins; whether or not PTI and PAT coalesced with any other conspiring power, that’s not the real issue. The real culprit is one who is before us, not one who is behind the mountain. The culprit is who has organized the sit-ins. It is PTI and PAT who are the culprit. It is their leaders who are the culprit!

Note: This article was completed on September 23, and was originally posted in September 2014. 

Charter of Democracy’s half truth

As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek launched this August 14 their “Azadi March” and “Inqilab March” respectively, and then undertook the Sit-Ins (Dharnas) in Islamabad; day by day it was increasingly perceived as a deadly threat to political constitutional set-up prevailing in the country. With worsening law and order situation in the capital including the fears of occupation of state buildings by the marchers, the fear of military intervention loomed large on the political horizon. However, in the face of it something very surprising took place: All the political parties sitting in the parliament reposed and reiterated their complete confidence in the current political set-up, including the government, rejected the marchers’ calls for prime minister’s resignation, dissolution of national and provincial assemblies, and holding of mid-term elections. More to it, bar associations and civil society organizations throughout the country supported the cause of the continuation of the current political constitutional set-up. Finally the Supreme Court also judged that all the institutions and authorities of the state must work remaining within their constitutional domains.

That’s unprecedented for the long checkered polity of Pakistan. Somehow all the political elements, except the protesting ones, out of which the PAT has no representation in the parliament, have put their weight on the side of the constitution ruling out any military adventure. Symbolically, it’s the victory of the Charter of Democracy, which Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim League-N) and Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan Peoples Party) signed in May 2006. However, it is strictly a political victory, which may or may not translate into something concrete for the individual citizens of Pakistan.

A look at the Charter of Democracy may reveal the political contours of the tale: It lists the following maladies that afflict Pakistan: Political crisis; Threats to its survival; Erosion of the federation's unity;  Military's subordination of all state institutions;  Marginalization of civil society; Mockery of the Constitution and representative institutions; Growing poverty, unemployment and inequality; Brutalization of society; Breakdown of rule of law; and, Unprecedented hardships facing our people under a military dictatorship.

After listing the afflictions, the Charter of Democracy proposed an “alternative direction” for the country characterized by the following: Economically sustainable; Socially progressive; Politically democratic and pluralist; Federally cooperative; Ideologically tolerant; Internationally respectable; Regionally peaceful; and, Resting of the sovereign right with the people to govern through their elected representatives.

In no way, anything agreed in the Charter of Democracy by the two larger political parties related to any aspect of the fundamental rights of the individual citizens of Pakistan. Revisit the Charter of Democracy and note its essential political character, which may be interpreted if not in an anti-citizen manner, necessarily not in a pro-citizen way either. Hence, what the Charter of Democracy agreed at achieving in 2006, it has achieved at this moment a substantial political part of it in 2014. Notwithstanding the fears that the rallying of the major political parties behind the demands of the constitutional rule and continuity, and against the PAT / PTI’s calls of winding up of the political system may evaporate tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

In view of the above analysis, every sane person would love to support the present constitutional political set-up and its continuation; however, at the same time he may wish it translate into the realistic availability of the fundamental rights for each and every individual. As the Supreme Court has observed (August 22): If the protesters are exercising their rights; other citizens’ too have their rights, which must not be encroached by them.

Now, it may be summed up that Charter of Democracy is half the Truth for the individual citizens; the other half of the Truth lies in another charter, a charter of individual citizen’s fundamental rights. It was this spirit in which I responded to the Charter of Democracy, and wrote a Charter of Liberty in September 2007, which sought to present a solution to the myriad problems and unimaginable sufferings faced by the ordinary people of Pakistan. The Charter of Liberty presented not only a critique of the Charter of Democracy but also offered an independent Charter of Liberty for individual citizens so that their personal freedom and fundamental rights may be secured.

In contrast to The Charter of Democracy’s Political Spirit which has manifested itself now in a constitutional consensus across the political horizon, The Charter of Liberty tries to imbibe the Individual Spirit which permeates the fundamental rights and their daily formulations in various situations. The individual citizens must rise to the occasion so that they are able to secure their personal freedom and fundamental rights against the onslaught of the unruly political elements.

Here are some of the demands, the Charter of Individual Citizens’ Fundamental Rights includes: We the individual citizens of Pakistan hold: That of all freedoms, individual freedom is of foremost importance; and that without it, all freedoms, be they political, economic, religious, etc., are useless; That without individual freedom, Pakistan can never be transformed into a virtuous society since it is individual freedom that allows people to make choices on their own and thus to be responsible for their choices and their consequences also; That the above amounts to saying that every individual citizen is endowed with certain inalienable rights such as right to life and liberty; That every individual citizen is free to pursue a life of his choice and liking until and unless he trespasses on such freedom of other individual citizen/s; That in the case of any trespassing, the trespasser, be it a citizen or a group or a political party or an institution or government itself, is to be dealt in accordance with the law.

That the inalienable rights include among other things the freedom of speech and writing, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of professing and practicing any philosophy, ideology, religion etc. and freedom of propagating it by peaceful means only; That the inalienable rights include freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of business, freedom of profession, etc. That amounts to saying that the only justified function of government is to protect its citizens life, their income and property, and their rights and freedoms from those who seek to usurp them be they are local or foreign individuals, groups of individuals, political parties, or institutions or government itself.

That, if there is no rule of law, and no independent judiciary, even a parliamentary government can never come up to the expectations of its citizens, i.e. cannot protect their life, liberty and property; and, That without an independent judiciary, justice can never be accessible to each individual citizen, and a just society can never be created. Thus, through this Charter the citizens’ Fundamental Rights not only in the political realm but in daily life situations, as is happening in Islamabad and elsewhere, may also be secured.

Note: This article was completed on August 25 and was originally posted in September 2014.

Media wars

It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used. [Sun Tzu]

Before March 9, 2007, it was all dark on the horizon of Pakistan. A military dictator was ruling while dressed in khaki uniform; he was intent upon continuing his rule for the next 5 years; and the criminal politicians were all ready to help him rule for more than a hundred years. Such was the hopelessness that no rational being could dream of a silver lining. One could only fear what happened to Iraq after it grabbed Kuwait, may not happen to Pakistan.

All of a sudden, and it was just like a bolt from the blue, a hope started taking shape. First time in Pakistan, the point was made that the government must be run by the book. So, the lawyers’ movement taught the people of Pakistan three lessons in democracy: constitutionalism, rule of law, and fundamental rights. During this movement, the dynamics of Pakistani society changed the repercussions of which will be felt far deeper into the future.

One of the new forces that emerged in the midst of that movement is electronic media. Rather it may rightly be asserted that not only the plethora of TV channels got allied and aligned with the people at large, but they realized their power also. That made them self-conscious elephantine! Ensuing of a fierce competition among them was quite natural. In a Robbinsian economic sense, viewership as well as advertisement revenue was scarce, and they fought for a larger share forgetting all the norms and rules of the game. The one which won not only a larger portion of the viewership but revenue also became the target of envy and conspiracies by other lesser obtainers.

Previously, it was all melodrama. There was only one TV channel, the state-run PTV. For its survival, it was dependent on the doles from the state, and it blew the stat’s trumpet. In order to survive, it’s still extorting Rs.35 every month from every TV set owner by using the might of the state. Emergence of dozens of new TV channels, which of course were to be run like businesses, completely altered the scene on the stage. The state-run PTV slipped behind the curtain, and lost both its viewership and revenue to the new breed of TV channels, which in no way were dependent on the state. Instead they depend on their market of viewers who indirectly yield revenue to them. Thus, in the world of electronic media in Pakistan loyalty to the market is the rule, and loyalty to the state and its institutions is an exception (loyalty to the constitution is quite something else).

As the art of the statecraft requires, the private TV channels were brought under a regulator, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). However, in essence the ruling political parties came to control these channels for political gains and privileges. That the regulator in this case, as in so many other cases, was not given autonomy and the government kept it under its authority, it remained spineless, resulting in a chaotic broadcasting environment. A number of attempts on the part of these private TV channels to self-regulate failed, which provided ample space to the state and its various institutions and agencies to dictate their agenda items to this or that TV channel.

But that was not like PTV days, the golden days of melodrama and happy eulogies. The competition among these channels drove them to uncharted territories and unfathomed depths. They have already realized their elephantine powerfulness during the lawyers’ movement when they helped defeat a military dictator. Now they have their own fish to fry. They started questioning every practice of the state, its various institutions, including the security entities; the pivot and the point of reference was and is the constitution of Pakistan. The stories and acts which previously went untold and unheard, now found tongues and ears. The tales of Saleem Shahzad, Umar Cheema, and Hamid Mir had a rebellious tone, and challenged the perpetrators. It may also be explained thus that where politicians were required to act boldly was taken up by a TV channel itself. This shows the utter desperation of those who have no hope of justice.

Under the circumstances, the most relevant question is about the role of the state and the politicians. Related with it are other crucial questions, such as: why the constitution is not followed in letter and spirit by the various institutions and entities, be they security or otherwise. Or why the politicians fail to enforce a constitutional rule in Pakistan. Why there is blatant power play which in fact repudiates the spirit and provisions of the constitution. Why the politicians fail in securing the fundamental rights to the citizens, be they journalists. Why the politicians fail to set up independent and autonomous regulators and let them do their job.

In other words, it means had there been rule of law in Pakistan, no institution and entity would have engaged itself in un-constitutional activities. Had there been independent and autonomous courts, no suppressing of the fundamental rights would have been possible. Had there been due accountability mechanisms existent at every level of the state institutions including the Army and the intelligence agencies, there would have been no cases such as of Saleem Shahzad, Umar Cheema and Hamid Mir on the one hand, and on the other, no media campaigns against any security entity may have been unleashed. But all that remains completely absent in Pakistan; which emboldens every individual and every institution to do what they like.

No doubt, the anarchy prevailing in the realm of electronic media in Pakistan at the moment may not have been the case, had there been an independent and autonomous PEMRA, which would have acted in the nick of time in case of any irregularity committed by any media house. However, the PEMRA is still conspicuously absent from the scene whereas weeks have passed that a media war has been raging in Pakistan. That speaks volume about the failure of the ruling PML-N’s leadership!

Note: This article was completed on May 27, and was originally posted in July 2014.

Mr. Prime Minister! It’s time to act

Mr. Prime Minister! You are better placed than any other Pakistani citizen, since you are sitting in the center of the state. The office you occupy by virtue of your electoral mandate is where the state authority converges, and it is from where authority flows to other institutions of the state in accordance with the dictates of the constitution of the country.

Mr. Prime Minister! You are the Chief Executive of the state of Pakistan, and as far as flow of information regarding the affairs of the state is concerned, in comparison to you this writer is merely an ignoramus. In case the present government of your party is toppled, the first casualty will be you, the prime minister; that means whatever future plans are being hatched anywhere, or whatever conspiracies are being woven in any quarters of the corridors of the powers against your government, you must be in the know. Also, I may assume that being the prime minister some of the intelligence agencies might directly be reporting to you.

However, the writer feels apprehensive, though his sources of information are only those common outlets of news and news-analysis which somehow do not pass on the truth as it is to their readers / audience; but no doubt some of the crumbs make their way to us. This writer reads daily newspapers diligently and tries to see what analyses are available on various websites, and how the political analysts on the TV talk shows are seeing the situation prevailing in the country. That helps him to form a view of what is happening and what may be going to happen in the days or months to come. On the basis of all that, the writer feels something bad is brewing in the higher echelons of the state, and as Iqbal the poet has said: Teri barbadaiyon kay mashwaray hain aasmanon mein (In the heavens are going on consultations for your destruction).

Mr. Prime Minister! In view of these developments it’s time to get your act together, and take a stock of the situation which is getting from bad to worse day by day.  This writer may not be all that correct, but there are conflicting signals coming from the members of your cabinet and functionaries of the government who smell a rat. That means all is not well that seems running well, and the opinionated commentators feel it may not end well too.

Mr. Prime Minister! Pakistan is already 66 years old and is yet to be identified as a state run strictly by the book. You know the reasons well, since you worked with them who do not wanted it to be a constitutional state, and at the same time you tasted their wrath when they overthrew your government and trampled the constitution.

Mr. Prime Minister! No doubt you were courageous enough then to keep the dictates of the constitution intact and took certain daring steps such as dismissal of General Pervez Musharraf, the then chief of the army staff. But at that moment, the constitution of the country, which is ultimately a moral document, was defeated by them who are endowed with the might of the gun in accordance with the same constitution which they violate, suspend and abort.

Mr. Prime Minister! You know well, and it is just to remind you, that why the constitution failed then and suffered a defeat at the hands of unruly state actors. As the generals and war experts suggest time is of essence! It was time which defeated both of you and the constitution of the country since you didn’t act in time or on time. The anti-constitution forces acted first and got the situation in their hands. You took too much time to think and act, and when you acted it was already too late. So technically it was time which defeated you, i.e. the time you took to think and act.

Yeah, Mr. Prime Minister! There is another argument which talks of gradual change and slow improvement. That argument cites the increasing awareness regarding the sanctity of the constitutionalism as a step forward. But at the same time it may also be argued that the last 66 years have witnessed many steps forward which finally converted into two steps back.

Mr. Prime Minister! The situation has worsened to the last the point, though there always remains a possibility of more and more worsening of it. Evil knows no end. That’s why just minor surgeries won’t do now; the time for such small cuts and incisions already belongs to the past. Radical and major surgery is the need of the hour; you must act here and now!

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest military leaders, said: “Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes, stop thinking and go in.” Mr. Prime Minister! You take too much time to think and deliberate; that doesn’t augur well for your actions. As for the unconstitutional acts of the state actors are concerned, Pakistan does not require slow and gradual taming; it needs a thumping blow so that all the anti-constitution forces learn a lesson.

Mr. Prime Minister! It is time to act before it’s too late. Before someone else trashes you, your government and the constitution, trash him by taking recourse to the provisions of the constitution which empowers you as its highest executive authority.

Mr. Prime Minister! Advise the president to call for a joint sitting of the parliament and order live telecast of the proceedings of that sitting, and take both the representatives and the citizens of the country into confidence. Share with them whatever is being woven around you and being hatched here and there against a constitutional government, and expose all such actors and take decisive action against them and show your mettle and authority to all who are intent upon violating the constitution. Not only is this the proper time to do the needful, it’s a do or die choice for the constitution of Pakistan also!

Note: This article was completed on June 15, and was originally posted in June 2014.

My new book, "Pakistan's Democratic Impasse: Analysis and the Way Forward" published / released

Here is the media release:

New book - “Pakistan’s Democratic Impasse” published

The book indicts politicians as the main culprit for failing the state of Pakistan

The book falsifies the myth of blaming the Pakistan Army for the ills Pakistanis facing

Author argues constitution authorizes politicians to rule, not the Army 

 Lahore April 8, 2014: Alternate Solutions Institute released today Dr. Khalil Ahmad's new book, Pakistan’s Democratic Impasse – Analysis and the Way Forward. Already this in 2012 and this February, he has published three books, "Pakistan Mein Riyasti Ashrafiya Ka Urooj" (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan, February 2012), “Siyasi Partian Ya Siyasi Bandobast: Pakistani Siyasat Ke Pech-o-Khum Ka Falsafiyani Muhakma” (Political Parties Or Political Arrangements: A Philosophical Critique of the Intricacies of Pakistani Politics, July 2012), and, Pakistani Kashakash: Tehleel-O-Tadeel aur Aagay Barhany ka Rasta (Pakistani Armageddon: Analysis, Resolution and the Way Forward, February 2014).

The book elaborates the above-stated position which the author took in three of his books and in a number of articles already published in newspapers and on his blog (www.NotesFromPakistan.blogspot.com). He holds that after so many stumbles through the 65 years of its existence, Pakistan has finally come to be: a government of the criminals, by the criminals, for the criminals. He singles out politicians as the main and the lone culprit not only for failing the citizens of Pakistan, but betraying their trust also.

The author says his book derives its rationale and insight from a reading of the constitution of Pakistan which considers the fundamental rights and the articles protecting these rights and freedoms as the core value of the constitution. His book looks beyond those articles and books, or that specific approach, which analyzes the democratic failure of Pakistan in a historical, sociological, economic, or political perspective only or in a way combining them all, and tries to see the history, sociology, economics and politics of Pakistan with an eye focused on the scheme of things the constitution of the country put in place to run the state of Pakistan.

Also, the author has tried to see the past, present and future role of politicians or political parties and Pakistan Army through the lens of the constitution, and thus his standpoint which is unprecedented and goes against the prevailing wisdom of putting the responsibility for the failure democratizing the society of Pakistan wholly and solely on the shoulders of Pakistan Army, may seem pleading the innocence of those Generals who imposed Martial Laws and disfigured the constitution; however, this book in addition to castigating the anti-constitutional acts of the Generals of the Pakistan Army holds that it is the inherent inability of the political civilian governments which did not prosecute and punish them, and in that sense vehemently censures that approach of absolving the politicians totally as unconstitutional and derisive to the constitutional manner of bringing order in a society.

The author concludes that his book not only sees bits of an already delayed indictment of the Pakistani politicians, but an opportunity also to conduct, on the basis of the same book, a thorough political audit of the performance of the political leaders and the political parties as the sole culprit who misled the political evolution of Pakistan, and constantly breached the trust of the citizens of Pakistan, as a result of which people of Pakistan were deadlocked into an impasse with no way out or forward to live their life as they wish but to live in servitude to the politicians.

In addition to suggesting ways to overcome this impasse, the author says that by putting all the burden of failures on politicians, constitutionalism and civilian supremacy in Pakistan may be strengthened, and this in due course will bring rule of law as an established norm in the country, and will bring a political culture never ready to tolerate any unconstitutional acts of any actors and flouters of the law of the land, and thus will ultimately help prepare ground not only for a decriminalized democratic polity but for democratic culture and values also to take root and flourish, overcoming the Pakistan’s chronic democratic impasse.

The author of the book, Dr. Khalil Ahmad, has been teaching Philosophy, and presently is mainly devoted to Political Philosophy. He is one of the founders of the Alternate Solutions Institute, a think tank dedicated to the strengthening of fundamental rights and rule of law in Pakistan. His most important works are "Pakistan Mein Riyasti Ashrafiya Ka Urooj" (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan), and "Charter of Liberty.”

http://asinstitute.org/node/426

Note: This was originally posted in April 2014.