Centralised decision-making
IN the minutiae, the government may have had a legal and a constitutional case to make: the laws governing the executive can be interpreted differently and all governments seek to maximise executive power and discretion. But the Supreme Court is unquestionably the final interpreter of what the law permits and it has sought to use its power to a manifestly good end: curbing political leaders’ impulse to centralise decision-making and exercise power in office imperiously. In dismissing the federal government’s review petition against a Supreme Court judgement limiting the prime minister’s ability to act in fiscal matters without consulting the federal cabinet, the court has pushed back against arbitrary decision-making by the chief executive of the country, the elected prime minister. The government may feel aggrieved and try and preserve what it sees as the prime minister’s sweeping constitutional powers, but it — and the country — would be better served if a basic question was considered: why should consulting the cabinet on all fiscal decisions be so problematic?
If the government were operating smoothly, efficiently and routinely through the appropriate institution, it might make sense to contest the finer points of the law and seek greater constitutional space for the chief executive to act in certain areas. But this government in particular appears to have an arrogant, dismissive attitude towards institutional decision-making. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif himself encourages the trend with his attitude towards parliament and his own cabinet. Rare is the occasion that he visits parliament. When he does, his party gives the impression that he is doing parliament and the country a favour by making an appearance. The federal cabinet too is largely ignored and kept collectively idle, until there is political capital to be reaped. That the government made a point of convening a cabinet meeting on the day Imran Khan was to have laid siege to Islamabad tells a story of its own — the cabinet deployed as a political tool rather than a chief instrument of governance. Then there are the critical inter-provincial bodies such as the CCI that are routinely ignored. Public regulatory and oversight bodies are also understaffed, under-resourced and regarded as an inconvenience.
The government is occasionally right when it complains that sensible and efficient decision-making by the executive is compromised by excessive interference by other institutions and encroachment on the executive’s constitutional domain. But there is a line between rule-based, constitutional decision-making powers and arbitrariness and authoritarianism. Too often this government gives the impression that it sees the structures of the state as inconveniences that are to be bypassed. Democracy is as much about strong institutions as it is about a legitimately elected government. Winning elections is not a pass to damaging institutions.
Market dynamited
APPLYING a draconian law dating back to 1901 at a time when efforts are under way to bring in more progressive legislation is counter-intuitive at best and counterproductive at worst. On Friday, local authorities in South Waziristan’s headquarters of Wana dynamited a two-storey building known as Al-Muhib market in the town’s sprawling Rustom bazaar. Around 130 shops were destroyed in the explosion, which was carried out under the collective responsibility clauses of the Fata-specific Frontier Crimes Regulation. The punitive action was in response to the death of a major and injuries to several others on Nov 1 when an IED was detonated during a search operation by military personnel at the same market. A curfew had been imposed on the entire bazaar since the incident, forcing the closure of 6,000-plus shops, with the security forces taking control of the area.
No one can deny that mopping up pockets of militancy still remaining in the northern areas is a complex task fraught with hazards. However, resorting to archaic concepts of retribution will only reinforce the grievances of Fata residents and underscore that they are unequal before the law in their own country. In fact, a redressal of this sense of alienation — engendered by virtue of living under a political, administrative and legal system divorced from the rest of Pakistan — was considered critical enough to be included in the National Action Plan. One of the FCR’s many clauses that are an affront to notions of fundamental rights is the concept of collective punishment whereby an entire group can be made to suffer the consequences of transgressions by a few people, or even an individual. Decimating the livelihoods of scores of shopkeepers and the resulting hardship for their dependents will not win hearts and minds in a region that remains vulnerable to militant inroads, where those internally displaced from recent military operations are still in the process of returning home. The move towards integrating Fata into Pakistan’s constitutional fabric has been far too long in coming. Although certain amendments were made to the FCR in 2011 to dilute some of its harshest clauses, it is only now with the Fata Reforms Committee having come out with concrete proposals that we may be on the cusp of seeing the sun set on that notorious piece of legislation. This is a historic opportunity to ensure that residents of Fata are never again subjected to primitive codes of conduct.
Karachi sectarian attacks
DESPITE efforts by the state to bring peace to Karachi, sectarian killings in the metropolis continue, putting a question mark on official claims. Within a week, over 10 people have been murdered in the Sindh capital in suspected sectarian attacks. On Friday, six people were gunned down in different parts of Karachi. Three men, reportedly workers of the banned Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, were shot dead while returning from a rally organised by the outfit. In the other incidents, two members of the relatively apolitical Tableeghi Jamaat, along with a prayer leader, were murdered in separate incidents. The killings come in the wake of the recent attack on a women’s majlis in Nazimabad, in which five people, including three brothers, were murdered. Police say Friday’s violence could be a reaction to the earlier incident. On Saturday, police took into custody former PPP senator Faisal Raza Abidi in connection with the killing of the Tableeghi Jamaat members.
It is hoped these acts of violence do not inspire more tit-for-tat attacks. Community leaders, ulema and the state must all play their role in ensuring communal harmony. However, it should be reiterated that there is no Shia-Sunni conflict at the communal level in Pakistan as such. This country has thankfully been spared much of the communal frenzy witnessed in certain Middle Eastern states. Here, outfits like Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (ASWJ’s old name) and its more virulent spin-off Lashkar-i-Jhangvi have, over the past three decades, played an instrumental role in bringing the culture of takfir (declaring others as being outside the pale of Islam) to the mainstream, along with physically eliminating the sectarian ‘others’. This, in response, gave rise to Shia militant groups such as Sipah-i-Mohammad. Throughout this period, the state’s response to the growth of sectarian militancy has been dismal, as ‘banned’ outfits have operated with relative ease. Hence, to put an end to the recurring cycles of sectarian violence, the state must permanently dismantle the outfits that provide the ideological and material support for violence.
Published in Dawn, November 6th, 2016