Groping for political sovereignty


Written by Sultan M. Hali • Region • September 2010

3-1 Who is in the driving seat in Pakistan - the people, parliament, executive, judiciary or the GHQ?

Political sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area, to operate the government, enact laws, and regulate activities and commerce. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. The concept has been discussed, debated and questioned throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day, although it has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty was laid down in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles of territorial integrity, border inviolability, and supremacy of the state (rather than the Church). A sovereign is a supreme lawmaking authority.

Pakistan's Constitution states that the people of Pakistan have the authority to exercise the sovereignty of the State through their chosen representatives. However in its short history spanning a little over six decades, the people's right to exercise their sovereignty has been usurped on a number of occasions. In 1958, General Ayub Khan imposed the first Martial Law, abrogating the 1956 Constitution. His rule lasted for eleven years, during which he gave a fresh Constitution introducing the Presidential form of democracy, which is really a farce, since Ayub Khan continued as the President and in the process promoted himself to the rank of Field Marshal.

By 1969, when people had become tired of his rule and were eager for a change, demonstrating in the streets, Ayub Khan decided to abdicate but not in favor of a civilian dispensation but the Army Chief, General Yahya Khan (so much for democracy!) This change ushered in the second Martial Law, bringing unmitigated disaster with the dismemberment of Pakistan's eastern wing. Yahya Khan's one commendable feat was holding Pakistan's first and only free and fair elections. However, instead of handing over the rein of power to the Awami League, which won maximum seats, Yahya Khan played in the hands of over ambitious politicians and lost East Pakistan. Following the debacle of 1971, Yahya was forced to hand over power to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who took oath as President but worked towards the formulation of the 1973 Constitution, bringing in Parliamentary form of Democracy; it was ratified by all political parties.

A period of uninterrupted democratic rule continued till 1977, but after the rigged elections the same year, political disturbances provided the Army the opportunity to jump into the fray once again and usurp power. General Zia-ul-Haq imposed the third Martial Law. During his rule, people's sovereignty was badly affected. Political vindictiveness, public flogging of opponents and the government's detractors became the order of the day. Nusrat Bhutto, the wife of the deposed Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, filed a suit against General Zia's military regime, challenging the validity of the July 1977 military coup. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in line with the role of the judiciary, which had served as hand-maiden to successive governments, ruled, in what would later be known as the Doctrine of Necessity that, given the dangerously unstable political situation of the time, General Zia's overthrowing of the Bhutto government was legal on the grounds of necessity. The judgment tightened the general's hold on the government. The weak sapling of democracy began to whither and die but after eleven years of repressive rule, fate intervened.

On August 17, 1988, Zia was killed along with several of his top generals and then United States ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Lewis Raphael in a suspicious aircraft crash near Bahawalpur (Punjab). His successor, General Mirza Aslam Beg, thought it prudent not to take over the reins of the government and give democracy a chance. Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister, after narrowly winning the general elections following Zia's demise. It however was a pyrrhic victory. Benazir was ruler but in name. One hand was tied behind her back as the Army and a powerful bureaucracy were dictating their own terms. Her reign did not last long as a virtual musical chairs followed with the leader of Pakistan Muslim League Mian Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto changing places alternately.

In 1999, Mian Nawaz Sharif, having become overconfident of his position and power, unceremoniously sacked General Pervez Musharraf, his own handpicked Army Chief. General Musharraf was returning from an official visit to Sri Lanka; before he landed back, he was dismissed, his replacement was appointed and instructions were given not to permit the aircraft bearing General Musharraf to land in Pakistan. The shoddy manner, in which he was removed, prompted the Army to revolt, assume power, get their (genuine) Chief to land and install him as the Chief Executive. General Musharraf's nine year rule is too recent to merit comment. One misjudgment on his part, however changed the role of the judiciary-from an abettor of various autocratic regimes, to an independent one-when the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry refused to cow down and triggered the movement for the freedom of judiciary and became a nemesis of General Musharraf, perhaps acting as a catalyst in his ultimate ouster.

That brings us to the current dispensation in the government, which has been in place since early 2008. In name it is a democratic government, elected by the people of Pakistan, however, it is such a weak government that the people cannot claim to enjoy political sovereignty. The reign of terror by the extremists has held the government hostage. The situation has become murkier owing to an economic meltdown, acute power shortage and the government's own ineptitude. Decisions which had to be taken by the parliament, the representative of the people, have been imposed arbitrarily, without consultation. Combating the war against terror has been relegated to the Army, while shades of the foreign policy too seem to have been abdicated in its favor by the government. The recent deluge, the planet's worst disaster for the people of Pakistan, found a corrupt, callous and weak government struggling with the rescue and relief operations. By default, again the baton passed to the Army, working in tandem with the Navy and Air Force.

Coming back to the question of who wields political sovereignty in Pakistan? Is it with the electorate, parliament, executive, and judiciary, the Constitution or the GHQ, or is it with the people of Pakistan? Under the present circumstances, "The political sovereignty of the people is a myth." The ultimate power in Pakistan is influenced by the Army and the Judiciary. A rejuvenated Judiciary has kept the government on tenterhooks after repealing the NRO and has taken cognizance of the objectionable clauses of the18th amendment to the Constitution and the Parliamentarians' fake degrees scandal. Rumor has it that it is the Chief of Army Staff, armed with a new lease of life after getting a full term extension, who has personally requested the Chief Justice to go easy on the government. Thus we see that it is the Army and the Judiciary, who are at the moment in the driving seat. The "elected" government is on the back foot while the people remain the losers in the equation.