28 December, 1997

Fascism on the march - IV



By Ardeshir Cowasjee

Should their mindset allow them one, all those who are still able to believe that the system we have is a democracy that suits the genius of and is capable of governing the 140 million people of Pakistan under the leadership of a bunch of known and proven robbers and looters whose sole aim is to grab power and pinch pelf, should have a second thought.

Reproduced are extracts from a series of columns entitled 'Ehtesab or Intekahb', printed in this space in this newspaper during the Leghari caretaker period :

Dec 12 1996 - "Never have we been nearer the edge of the precipice. The people must be taken into confidence and their will must prevail. A direct reference must be made and this Caretaker Government must ascertain what it is the masses want. The Constitution adequately provides in Article 48(6) : "If, at any time, the President, in his discretion, or on the advice of the Prime Minister, considers that it is desirable that any matter of national importance should be referred to a referendum, the President may cause the matter to be referred to a referendum in the form of a question that is capable of being answered by 'yes' or 'no'."

Dec 29 1996 - "The constitutionalists who support Nawaz maintain that elections must be held within 90 days. They ignore Article 254 : 'When any act or thing is required by the Constitution to be done within a particular period and it is not done within that period, the doing of the act or thing shall not be invalid or otherwise ineffective by reason only that it was not done within that period.' They overlook Article 48(6).

"Why is the President afraid of holding a referendum? He must know that the overwhelming majority of the people will insist that the holding of the accountability process must be completed, and that the guilty politicians should be disqualified, or convicted, before any elections are held? But does he know that the majority of the people find many of the present Caretakers unacceptable? He could easily replace them and appoint men in whom the people have confidence."

Jan 20 1997 - "The people say, let there be a time-limited delay in the holding of elections. Article 58(2)(b) provides for an appeal to the electorate. Article 48(6) permits the President "in his discretion or on the advice of the Prime Minister" (the advice being binding) to hold a referendum. Can the President not ask the people if they wish for a time-limited delay in the holding of elections (say, a period of 15 months) which would give him and his team (a changed team, he should get rid of the known rotters) time to strengthen the accountability laws and complete the process? From the highest to the lowest in the land, the feeling is that these elections are being held far too soon. Chief Justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah is all for accountability and has stated that the 90 days period is 'too inadequate for completing the accountability process' ( Dawn Jan 13).

"If, as it seems clear they will, the people vote for a time-limited delay, the Nawazians, the anxious hopeful beneficiaries, may go to court in protest. Let the CJ and his bretheren then give their verdict."

All too late now. Leghari dithered, wavered, and made up his mind that Nawaz Sharif was to be installed in the prime ministerial mansion and given another round. Incapable of exercising moral authority, he let greed get the better of him. And what was his fate? In less than a year, having allowed himself to be rendered weak and vulnerable by the very creature he had installed, and fearing the remote possiblility of impeachment, he fled the scene on December 2.

Nawaz was sworn in as prime minister on February 17. Rather than concentrating on doing good by the people, for which all that is needed are moral qualities and endowments, moral habits and conduct, and the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, his fascistic mindset dictated that he concentrate on grabbing more power than was due to him by the Constitution.

So, in less than two month, at midnight on April 2, all rules and procedures of Parliament were suspended and in the middle of the night, the 13th Amendment Bill was rushed through both Houses, signed by the President the next day, and notified on April 4. By this Amendment, the President was disempowered, and the Prime Minister further empowered. The President can not dissolve the National Assembly, he can not appoint Governors at his discretion but on the advice of the Prime Minister, the provincial Governors can not dissolve their assemblies, the President though he remains supreme commander of the Armed forces no longer has the power to appoint or sack the service chiefs.

The questions the President did not ask before signing this Bill : Why is this Amendment necessary? Why were the rules of procedure suspended ? Why was no debate allowed in the House?

Rules dictate that an amendment to a constitution is an extraordinary measure involving a great deal of deliberation on the part of the ruling party, consultation with the opposition, and an objective study of public opinion on the subject.

Thereafter, according to the Rules of Procedure governng parliamentary procedure under the 1973 Constitution, a bill (other than a finance bill) upon its inroduction in the House stands referred to the relevant standing committee, unless the requirements of Rules 91 and 92 are dispensed with by the House on a motion by the member-in-charge. The standing committe is required to present its report within 30 days and, on receipt of this report, copies of the bill as introduced, together with any modifcations recommended by the standing committee, must be supplied to each member within seven days. Two clear days then must elapse before the bill can be sent down for a motion under Rule 93.

Less than three months after this transgression, on June 30, in the Senate, the rules of procedure were again suspended, The 14th Amendment Bill went through like a shot, passed in less than a day, without one single protest or dissent being recorded.

On July 1, the Bill was presented to the National Assembly, again rules of procedure were suspended, and the Bill was passed immediately, again without one single protest or dissent. It went up to the President, on July 3 he put his signature to the Bill, and on July 4 the Fourteenth Amendment Act of 1997 came into force.

This Amendment admittedly has the aim of putting an end to lucrative defections. But lotaism only existed because all our political parties were in the business of buying and selling bodies. However, that was not deemed to be sufficient. The Prime Minister had to be further empowered, and so he was. A member of a parliamentary party will also be deemed to have defected if he breaches any declared or undeclared party discipline, code of conduct or policies, or if he votes contrary to any direction issued by his parliamentary party, or if he abstains from voting as instructed by his party on any Bill. The prosecutor, defence counsel, judge and jury who will decide the member's fate is the Head of the Party, whose decision is not justiciable in any court of law.

The 14th Amendment rendered the herd of legislators voiceless and the bell-wethers all supreme. Again, the President did not question the necessity for the stifling of all dissent.

The 15th Amendment Bill, disempowering the Chief Justice of Pakistan, has already been drafted. It was to be rushed through the two Houses in November, but for some strange reason Nawaz and his men stayed their hand. There is no reason for them to stay it any longer, and any day now rules and procedures will be thrown to the winds and the hasty midnight process will be repeated.

Now, to face reality. Nawaz Sharif had, within six months, managed to remove most of the stumbling blocks in his way. He had so far not touched the judiciary. He soon realised that the superior judiciary, headed by an honest man, was capable of moving against him. He made up his mind that Sajjad Ali Shah would have to go. Having reached this conclusion, he then sought the means.

Is there any reasonable man in Pakistan, born of a woman in wedlock, prepared to believe that two honourable judges of the Supreme Court, Justices Irshad Hasan Khan and Khalilur Rahman, sitting in far away Quetta in the month of November, were capable of acting as they did on their own, free of any external governmental instigation or influence? What transpired in cold Quetta and the repercussions thereafter, which defy logic and reason, is a story of shame that will haunt our superior judiciary for years to come. This presupposes, of course, that those who will follow will be men of conscience.

If fascistic practice prevails, ladies and gentlemen of the press, we are next on the chopping block.

__________ ac@xiber.com ___________ Ardeshir Cowasjee, Karachi, Pakistan