i need notes on fedralism in pakistan...?

FEDERALISM IN PAKISTAN :
ISSUES AND ADJUSTMENT


The adoption of a constitution is a momentous event in the life of
nation. A constitutional charter is a document of past struggles,
achievements issues, arguments and compromises which have been
crystallised and purified. It is at the same time a practical machinery
of government, a code of conduct for the statesmen of the present. It is
also finally a symbol of hopes and aspirations to the entire nation it
serves.1
Federalism is a form of government in which powers are divided
between the central government for the whole country and
governments for parts of the country, better known as federal units.
The federal form of government is a common existing form of
government. It is because of the face that the federal form of
government is more suitable for those societies which are heterogeneous
in character. A majority of the societies in the world comprise
different ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups. If the diversity of these
groups is not united by a viable political system, the survival of the
particular society may be at stake.
A federal form of political system provides two divisible sets of
subjects for the two kinds of governments (federal and state/
provincial). There can be a third list of the subject, commonly known
as concurrent, over which both federal and state governments can
exercise power; nonetheless, in the case of differences over the
exercise of power, the right of the federal government will prevail. Thus,
both the governments derive their powers from a single federal constitution.
2 The strength of federalism, which has emerged as a philosophy
of politics and a successful mechanism of government to attain
political unity between various social entities in a society in large
number of nation-states, springs from constitutional foundations. In
the case of Pakistan, a heterogeneous society being divided into a
number of ethnic and linguistic groups, federalism has been
considered an important means to secure political harmony in the
country. Since the partition of Pakistan to the present, the question of
federalism has occupied an important position in all the constitutional
debates. Federalism emerged on the political scene as a leading
demand by all federal units as a device to safeguard their interests
against the central government by having adequate constitutional
leverage in running their administrative and economic affairs.3
This paper is an attempt to analyze the constitutional foundations
of federalism in Pakistan. It will focus on the major constitutional
developments made in Pakistan for the promotion of federalism, by
examining the issues and adjustments involved.
The Pre-Partition Historical Background
Demands were made for the promotion of federalism by the Muslim
League, Indian National Congress, Pakhtoon’s Khudai Khidmatgar
Movement, and other political groups during all the constitutional
debates in British India. The Muslim League worked Jointly with the
Indian National Congress and independently for the promotion of
federation in India. The 1909 Constitutional reforms, better known as
Minto-Morley Reforms, were based on the demand raised by the
Muslim League for separate electorates for the Muslims in order to
safeguard their interests-a demand for federalism at the embryonic
stage.
A few years later, the joint mobilization of the All India Muslim
League and Congress, for more share in the Central Legislature and
separate electorates, resulted in the famous Lucknow Pact of 1916.
The Montgagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919 were the result of the
collective demand by both the political groups for a federal system of
government.4
Although adequate measures were not taken by the British
government in India for the fulfillment of the demands of the people,
seeds were sown for more provincial autonomy. Five years later, in the
annual session of the All India Muslim League in May 1924, the League
24 ASIAN AFFAIRS
pressed for full provincial autonomy to each province. The Quaid-I –
Azam proposed that constitutional arrangement be made for granting
the residuary powers to the provinces by determining the excessive
jurisdiction of the central government in the provinces.5 The Quaid’s
important 14 Points in response to the Nehru Report in 1928,
reiterated the demand for federalism by seeking the maximum
autonomy and residuary powers for the provinces. He asked for
abolishing Diarchy in the provinces.
Allama Muhammad Iqbal’s Address in 1930 at Allahabad echoed
the Muslim League’s aspiration for a federal system. A voice was raised
that the territories for the Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP and
Kashmir should be unified into a separate/autonomous state(s).
The 1935 Government of India Act, carrying the recommendations
of the Simon Commission and the Round Table Conferences held in
1930 and 1931, adopted the principles of federalism. Three lists of
powers were established, the Central, Provincial and Concurrent.
Powers were divided separately except the Concurrent list, over which
both the Centre and Provinces could exercise powers, and the right of
the central Legislature was to prevail in the case of a conflict. A large
number of residuary powers were vested with the Governor General.
He could authorize at his discretion, either the Federal Legislative
Council or a Provincial Assembly to enact on a subject not
enumerated in the three lists. The Government of India Act 1935, later
on to serve as the important constitutional document, tended towards
the centralization of powers in favour of the central government. But
in fact it was not fully implemented. Section 5 of the act of 1935, which
provided for the setting up of what is called a “Federation of India” was
never implemented, as “the requirement of the accession of a specified
number of princely states” was not met. Thus, the central government
in India continued to operate under Act of 1919 right up till power was
transferred in 1947 to India and Pakistan on independence.6
Constitutionalism and Federalism in Pakistan
Federalism was provided as one of the promises for the establishment
of Pakistan. Federalism and Provincial autonomy have been
political catchwords from the beginning of Pakistan. No constitutional
matter has bred such a controversy as did the central units
relationship.7 But the principles of federalism have been undermined
since 1947. As dismissal of Dr Khan’s Ministery in N.W.F.P. and
emergence of Jagto front in Bengal created dissention between
centripetal and centrifugal forces over the autonomy issue. A large
Number of provincial leaders hoped from the new nation that
entrenched role of the central government would decrease after
independence. However, to their dismay, it was the reverse. The
central government’s role increased.8 The constitutional crisis
developed soon after the first Constituent Assembly started to function
as it voiced political differences over the issues of federalism. The
balance of federal structure, which was in favour of the centre as
provided, in the 1935 Act, was continued as an integral part of the new
country’s political system. If the central government had wished it
could have allowed the provinces in actual practice and effect a
substantial measure of autonomy between 1947 to 1956 even before a
constitution was framed, as it was capable of altering the interim
constitution.9
The Basic principles Committee strongly recommended principles
of federalism, nonetheless, they were ignored in large. The 1956
constitution provided a federal form of government, with a strong role
for the central government. Under the one-Unit system, Pakistan was
divided into two zones : East and West Pakistan. Under the Parity
Formula, the National Assembly comprised 310 members. 150 were
elected by popular vote from each unit, and 10 seats were reserved for
women to be elected indirectly. However it is pertinent to note that the
parity formula was not adopted in western unit amongst the Punjabi,
Sindhi, Pashtoon, and Balochs, as the seats were allocated to the above
mentioned communities on population bases, instead of parity formula.
Legislative powers were divided into three lists : Federal (30 items),
provincial (94 items) and Concurrent (19). In the case of a clash of
interests over legislation over the Concurrent list, the right of the central
government Prevailed. The political crisis and instability of the
constitutional government during the two years of the existence of 1956
constitution dimmed the credibility of a healthy centre-provinces
relationship. The abrogation of the 1956 constitution by a military –
cum – presidential coup in 1958, was a real setback for federalism in
Pakistan, particularly at the great cost of East-West Pakistan relationship.
From 1958 to 1962, there was no constitution, and the political
structure of the country was run under a crude unitary system where
command ultimate lay with Ayub Khan and his like-minded generals.
FEDERALISM IN PAKISTAN 25 26 ASIAN AFFAIRS
The 1962 constitution, a brain – child of president Ayub Khan, was
designed to seek legitimacy of rule under a political structure whose
support largely came from the federal institutions: army and civil
bureaucracy. The recommendations of the constitution commission
Ayub Khan appointed on 17 February, 1960, under the chairmanship
of Justice Shahabuddin to probe the future of parliamentary
government in Pakistan, were largely ignored. The commission had
strongly recommended a federal form of government with the
maximum autonomy to units/provinces.
The 1962, constitution, like the 1956 constitution, contained three
lists of legislative powers: Centre. Provinces and Concurrent to be
exercised by the centre and provinces. The constitution provided a
strong role for the president, both as the head of the state and
government. The one-Unit system envisaged in 1955 was continued
in the constitution. There was a one-house legislature known as the
National Assembly. The National Assembly was elected for five years.
According to article 20 of the constitution, the members of the
National Assembly were elected on the parity formula, half from the
East and half from the West Pakistan. The constitution defined only
the central list with 49 items, from which the federal legislature could
legislate. The items mentioned in the provincial and concurrent list
were not specified. The residual powers left to the provinces were a
total deviation from the principles of federalism.10
The balance of power under the 1962 constitution was heavily titled
in favour of the federal government. The jurisdiction of the federal
legislature was totally dominant over the provincial legislature. The
provincial Assemblies had items of little importance to legislate on.
The political events following the proclamation of the martial law in
1969, and the announcement of the first general elections in
Pakistan by President Yahya Khan leading to the emergence of
Bangladesh on the world map, entailed the question of federalism in
Pakistan. The Awami League’s stunning elections victory, securing
160 in East seats Pakistan, was fully supported by the Six points
formula of Mujeeb-ur-Rahman, actually deviced in 1966 as the Awami
League stunt for parity in administrative economic and development
matters. According to it the important residuary powers were to be left
only to provinces, by giving with the federal government only defense
and foreign affairs11. The seeds of dissatisfaction and discontent
actually sown during the constitutional debates/crisis (1947 to 1954),
bread into a civil war after Yahya Khan postponed the session of the
National Assembly on March 1, 1971 to put pressure on Mujeeb for a
compromise over his Six points. The die had been cast after troops rolled
into the streets of East Pakistan, to tame the sporadic uprising against
Islamabad. The image of an united country faded into disintegration
over the centre provinces relationship as the verdict of majority bengali
people was not honoured.
The 1973 constitution contained a new power arrangement to
redefine the principles of federalism under the term “maximum
provincial autonomy” The residuary powers were vested in the
Provincial Assemblies12. The one Unit system abolished by Yahya Khan
was followed by an ordinance which raised Balochistan to the
provincial status in 1970. For the first time, a bicameral legislature
was elected. The Senate was elected for four years on parity bases. The
provinces namely, Punjab, Sindh, N.W.F.P. and Balochistan have to
elect 14 members each for four years. Half of the members retired after
two years. The 1973 constitution contained two lists : Federal and
Concurrent. The Federal list comprised two parts. Part I contained items
over which only the Parliament could legislate. The Federal list
contained 67 subjects. The Federal and Provincial governments could
legislate over the Concurrent List; however, in case of conflict over the
exercise of power, the central government’s right prevailed (article 143).
The constitutional period of the Bhutto government was marked
with a strong role of the central government, resulting in discontent
in two provinces, the NWFP and Balochistan. Even before the 1973
constitution could function, Z.A. Bhutto, under the interim constitution,
as the interim President, dissolved the Balochistan’s majority
coalition government of Attaullah Mengal on February 15, 1973. In
protest to the dissolution of the Balochistan government, the NAP-Jul
coalition under Mufti Mahmood resigned in the NWFP. Later on, the
NAP was banned in February 1975 and its leaders were arrested
under the charges of conspiracy against the state. They remained
behind the bars until 1977. Political disruption in the two governments
was a blow to federalism. The voice of opposition in the National
Assembly was lowered. The promotion of federalism was marred by the
military coup in 1977, after General Zia-ul-Haq seized power and
suspended the constitution for another 8 years. The power setup from
FEDERALISM IN PAKISTAN 27 28 ASIAN AFFAIRS
1977 to 1985 was crudely in the hands of a military junta which
controlled the political structure, all in an unitary manner. A number
of presidential Orders, later on to be covered by 8th Amendment to the
1973, constitution, were issued to run the system of government.
The 8th Amendment was the first major amendment that Gen
Zia-ul-Haq introduced to revive the 1973 constitution, by protecting a
large number of the President’s Orders and Ordinances issued between
1977 to 1985, during the period when the constitution was held in
abeyance. The 8th Amendment did not change the federal nature of the
constitution in large. It, however, enhanced the legislative powers of
the upper house: Senate. The amendment increased the number of
Senators of each province from 14 to 19, and the tenure of a Senator
from four to six year. The Senate’s power of amendment in constitution
were increased. Article 239, before the amendment, actually vested
the initiation of an amendment bill only in the national Assembly first,
and after it was approved by a two-thirds, majority, it was to be
presented in the Senate to pass it with a simple majority. After the
amendment, it not only requires a two thirds majority in the senate
but can also be initiated in either house. The requirement of two-thirds
majority in the Senate raised the legislative role of small provinces to
stem any legislation against the interests of the province.13.
Major Issues and Adjustment
Dicey said that acceptable distribution of powers between the centre
and units is an essential feature of the federalism.14 Federalism
being a popular and practical form of government between the centre
and units all over the world, is supported by an edge of the centre over
the units. No where in the world does federalism give the units an
equal share in power distribution. The federal government may have
maintained a supremacy of legislative power over the units regarding
issues of national importance, however, the units are allotted adequate
powers the system of federalism. In Pakistan, the centre has maintained
a dominant role over the provinces right from the beginning. The
dismissal of Khan Shaib Ministry in NWFP on 22 August, 1947, M.A.
Khuhro on April 20, 1948 in Sindh, Mamdoth,s on January 25, 1949,
and Fazal-ul-Haq’s in 1954 in East Pakistan (under section 92-A of
1935 Act), despite the majority they held in the Assemblies, was a
reflection of the federal principles the country was created on. They
were not only regarded as the undemocratic dimension, but created a
precedent which later on led the central government to restore their
reserve powers to dismiss provincial minsitries.15
Two factors are largely responsible for the strong role of the centre
in Pakistan. First, Pakistan has been run for very long without any
constitutional setup during the period the political system was
virtually turned into an unitary system. Second, in all the constitutional
setup, the balance of power has been overwhelmingly titled in
favour of the central government. Pakistan has faced the absence of a
stable representative government and remained under a non-democratic
and military rule for a long period. Under such a political setup,
the role of the centre becomes overwhelming over the affairs of the units,
and the principles of federalism are discouraged. There was no
constitutional representation from 1947 to 1956. The constitutional
crisis which developed during the existence of the first Constituent
Assembly, strengthened the role of federal institutions against the
provinces. The government, based on the 1956 constitution was short
lived and handicapped by political chaos. The failure of a constitutional
government resulted in military coup, the repercussions of which
seriously undermined the future democratic setup. President Ayub
ruled the country with the strong role of the army and bureaucracy
from 1957 to 1969. The constitutional setup formed in 1962 strengthened
the two institutions to support Ayub Khan’s regime. The
Proclamation of martial law in 1969 and separation of East Pakistan in
1971, bore the enigma of political development even after a political
settlement was reached for a representative government based on the
1973 constitution.
The July 1977 military coup made the constitution to lie domant
for the next 8 years. When with a non-party constitutional setup it was
revived. It represented a strong centre where President enjoyed a very
strong role. The 8th Amendment had made his office to exercise power
independent of any advice from the Prime Minster to dissolve a
government on the plea of being incompatible with the constitutional
government. The enjoying of the Presidential right to dissolve the
centre government (in, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1996) under section
58 (2)-B Knocked even all four provincial governments, including that
one which remained in opposition to the centre.16 However the 13th
amendment to the Constitution deleted the discretionary powers of
the president entrusted upon him under article 58(2)-B for
dissolution of elected governments or assemblies.17
FEDERALISM IN PAKISTAN 29 30 ASIAN AFFAIRS
Secondly, in all the constitutional frameworks of Pakistan, the
concentration of powers titled toward the centre. In all the three
constitutions, the federal list was “the richest in terms of the number
of subjects and their importance”18 The promise of provincial supremacy
appeared like a dumb slogan when actual distribution of powers
began. In 1956 constitution, the important list of legislative powers
was in the hands of the centre. However, the distribution of powers
between the centre and provinces rested on the principles that the
centre had exclusive authority to make laws, while the provincial
legislatures had the authority to make laws on all other matters. In
1962, the distribution of powers was heavily in favour of the centre. A
similar supremacy was established in 1973 constitution. The
Pakistani Society, which is ethnically heterogeneous and socio –
culturally complex, requires a federal system where provinces have
constitutional power structure to exercise legislative, financial an administrative
powers. The Parity formula given in 1956 and 1962, bred
hatred and frustration not only between the two wings of East and West
Pakistan, but alienated the smaller provinces within the Western unit
from the centre, where the Punjab had a big share in the army and
bureaucracy.
A bane of the federal – provinces relationship has been the
dissatisfaction shown over the financial arrangements between the
centre and provinces. From the beginning of Raisman Award in 1951
to the National Finance Commission award, 1990, the provinces have
shown reservation over the distribution of pooled taxes and income
from the national resources. The central government is believed to have
predominated over the provinces in financial matters.19 The trends bred
dissatisfaction among the smaller provinces of the NWFP, Balochistan,
and Sindh over the allotment of funds, as compared to the resources
that the provinces generated. Regarding a better financial relationship
between them, more bilateral and collective discussions are
needed between the centre and provinces for the assessment of
provincial resources and the funds allotted for development. Keeping
in view the development requirements of smaller provinces, funds may
not be allotted only on Population basis but on the land needing
development. Good federalism based on healthy distribution of
centre-units power relationship is tailored to the desires and needs of
a country’s geo-political and socio-cultural conditions. The centre
provinces relationship are based on cooperative federalism. However,
in a number of polities, the principles of federalism are marred by
heterogeneity, lack of national integration, absence of a viable party
system, and narrow provincialism. Pakistan is no exception to this fact.
It is a country in which constituent units are marked by cultural,
linguistic, and historical difference. There has been a lack of a viable
two-party system at the national level and provincial level. The
provinces of the NWFP and Balochistan have gradually been failed to
form a coalition – free governments in the past. A number of political
parties exist at regional level whose support comes on ethnic and
nationalist grounds.
Major Recommendations
1. Constitutional devices be adopted to safeguard the financial,
legislative and administrative interests of provinces without
unnecessary interference’s of the centre government.
2. The federal units be given the adequate share of revenue out of
the income on its resources. The provinces be allowed the power
of taxation on important matters, now possessed by the centre.
3. The interference of the affairs of provinces be reduced by the
centre. The political history of Pakistan shows that under an
elective setup ruling elite at centre are indulged in excessive
political manipulations to make centre all powerful. They make
federal units more extensions rather than autonomous and
coordinating partners.
4. The provincial governments should cooperate with the federal
government on major issues. The centre – provinces relationship
have also been marred by the centre-provinces confrontation
where a regional based party in power defied the centre
government being non-cooperative. The centre-province
dialogue are needed for the purpose.
Conclusion
Federalism in Pakistan has been a catchword since 1947. The
principles of true federalism, which served as the corner stone for the
creation of Pakistan in the Lahore Resolution of 1940, have not been
promoted to establish a healthy federal state. The role of the central
government and federal agencies have dominated the affairs of units
FEDERALISM IN PAKISTAN 31 32 ASIAN AFFAIRS
during both constitutional government and military regimes. The
distribution of powers between the central and units was a major issue
between the East and West Pakistan controversy. The constitutional
framework in the country since 1947 has placed the balance of power
predominantly in the favour of centre. The control of centre over the
legislative, economic and administrative powers have bred discontent
among the smaller provinces of Pakistan. The rise of Nationalism in
the federating units generated the alarming atmosphere against the
economic in justices and denial of provincial autonomy. This caused
hatred and ethnic polarisation between Punjab and rest of the three
provinces.
Major recommendations needed for promotion of cooperative
federation in the country, to respect the spirit of federal parliamentary
democratic system for the supremacy of the constitutional requirements
in order to run the governmental affairs through participation of
all the federating units in the decision making policies related to
foreign and internal issues.

__________________
Try not to become a man of success but a man of value.

The Endemic Crisis of Federalism in Pakistan


Abstract
This paper looks at the issue of federalism in Pakistan. It begins with an analysis of the conceptual paradigms of federalism and goes on to examine the history of federalism in Pakistan. The paper goes on to discuss the reasons for the failure to develop an organic federal covenant as well as discuss how the 7th National Finance Commission (NFC) Award and the 18th Amendment may be indicative of a paradigm shift. The paper concludes by presenting the way forward for federalism in Pakistan.
Keywords: Federalism, governance, Pakistan.

I. Introduction

This paper will examine the history of Pakistan’s experiments with systems of state governance, with a view to understanding the dynamics of Pakistan’s various federal arrangements and their impact over time. In doing so, this paper will argue that Pakistan has failed to establish an effective federal covenant between will further argue that, in an attempt to shift the focus of the analysis toward the agency of societal forces, the failure to create a workable national covenant has led to what may its constituent units, despite some incremental movements toward regional autonomy and devolution. It be called the syndrome of a ‘failing society’. This assertion will entail an analysis of contemporary political attempts to rectify the dynamics between federating units, for charting the potential course of Pakistan’s future federal arrangements. Before one can embark on the task of tracing Pakistan’s federal
trajectory, however, it is necessary to theoretically identify, locate, and explicate federalism in order to comprehend its significance in the context of the Pakistani state.
∗ Raza Ahmad is a policy adviser and researcher based in Lahore. He has worked with the Asian Development Bank, United Nations and the Government of Pakistan. 16 Raza Ahmad

II. Federalism in Conceptual Paradigms
A Working Definition of Federalism

Ronald Watts (1998) defines a federation as a compound polity combining constituent units and a general
government, each possessing powers delegated to it by the people through a constitution, each empowered to deal directly with the citizens in the exercise of a significant portion of its legislative, administrative, and taxing powers, and each directly elected by its citizens (Watts, 1998, p. 121). As a normative concept, federalism is the advocacy of a pragmatic balancing of citizen preferences for (a) joint action for certain purposes and (b) self-government of the constituent units for other purposes.

Federalism and Social Capital

Jason Mazzone (2001) argues that federalism promotes the kinds ofsocial relationships that allow citizens to overcome collective action barriers and get things done. That is, federalism has value because it promotes social capital or ‘features of social organization such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action’ (Mazzone, 2001, p. 27).
An important benefit of dividing authority between the national government and sub-national units is that such division increases the points of political power over which citizens can exert influence in order to achieve their goals. Rather than facing a single governing entity under a federal system of government, citizen groups (whether ideological, ethnic, civic, or otherwise) can influence political outcomes by directing their resources toward local, state, and national levels. A political environment in which there are multiple sites for influence promotes the emergence of social capital because such an environment is conducive to a large number of interest groups in which citizens actively participate. Thus, federalism provides opportunities for smaller groups of the citizenry to organize and pursue their goals in a variety of settings, rather than relegating vast numbers of citizens to passive roles in a large national advocacy group which pursues its members’ interests in the center. In other words, when political power is divided, it is more difficult for any single interest group to dominate. Divided political power, therefore, increases opportunities for engagement in government by additional groups of citizens, thereby enhancing social capital (Mazzone, 2001, p. 42).
The Endemic Crisis of Federalism in Pakistan 17\ This theory is borne out by the cases of various multi-cultural and multi-ethnic federations, such as the United States, Canada and our neighbors to the East. It is especially relevant to the case of Pakistan, where multiple societal cleavages have led to the ‘failed society’ syndrome.

Federalism as a Covenant

The etymological roots of federalism can be traced back to the Latin ‘foedus’ or covenant. The word was initially used to describe cooperative, contractual agreements between states, usually for defense purposes. A covenant implied mutuality, with each party fulfilling certain obligations toward the others (Rodden, 2005, p. 489). From such an understanding, it follows that a situation where the central government utilizes local governments as instruments for achieving its ends simply by virtue of administrative fiat cannot be viewed as a contractual or federal relationship. Federalism, by its very definition, implies that for some subset of the central government’s decisions or activities, it is necessary to obtain the consent or active cooperation of the sub-national units (Rodden, 2005, p. 489). To make sense of the concept, however, it is important to understand how and why federal contracts are made in the first place. Federalism, both in terms of definition and operation, is inextricably tied to the historical circumstances in which the contract is formed and applied. As mentioned earlier, many federations, particularly those in Europe, arose out of a bargain aimed at achieving military defense against a common enemy (with the subsequent addition of other collective goods into the contract, such as free trade and currency) (Rodden, 2005, p. 489). However, for the purpose of understanding the situation as it exists in Pakistan, it is important to bear in mind that, in many postcolonial states, the modern federal bargain did arise from a mutual need for defense or otherwise, but rather out of the vagaries of colonial policies and their sociopolitical ramifications. It is in this historical context that we must view the case of Pakistan, where federalism has struggled to take root even, more than 60 years after independence.

The Overdeveloped State Hypothesis

An instrument of analysis that may be employed to better grasp Pakistan’s federal dilemmas is that of Hamza Alavi’s ‘Overdeveloped State’. Alavi argued that (a) the original base of the state apparatus inherited by a postcolonial society lay in the metropole (i.e., the colonizing country) and, (b) its task was to subordinate all the indigenous classes or groups in the colony (or ex-colony) and hence it was ‘overdeveloped’ in relation to the excolonial society. The state also inherited, according to Alavi, a strong
18 Raza Ahmad military-administrative apparatus and directly appropriated a large part ofthe national economic surplus. Alavi held that postcolonial states were characterized by ‘centrality’, embodied in the power of the state bureaucracy (Leys, 1976, pp. 39-40). The overdeveloped state thesis is vital in understanding Pakistan’s failed experiments in federalism, as it is emblematic of the antagonistic, colonial relationships that have endured between the smaller provinces and the powerful center.

III. History of Federalism in Pakistan

Pre-Partition: The Mughal Era and the British Empire

In some senses, federalism has long been rooted in the statecraft of the subcontinent. Devices of territorial autonomy were used as a means ofmanaging diversity and as methods of government in the time of theMughals, though it is arguable as to what extent they were effective. TheBritish also understood the administrative necessity of federalism as a tool toperpetuate their rule over the subcontinent, with a gradual delegation ofpower and responsibilities over time to the states and provinces of India from 1919 onwards (Adeney, 2007, p. 121). With gradual increments, the British experiment with federalism culminated in the Government of India Act of 1935, at a time when tensions between the colonizer and the colonized had transformed into a dialectic between British constitutional experiments and Indian reactions to them. The Act was a document of partial self-rule for India, a constitutional outline that appropriated the language and the institutions of the liberal state but which emphasized British parliamentary control, in part by the pervasive possibility, and use, ofemergency powers (Newberg, 1995, pp. 17-19).

The Wrong-Footed Beginning and the Military-Bureaucracy Nexus

The Lahore Resolution of 1940, while resolute in its commitment to provincial sovereignty and weak central rule, also represented a contract between the Muslim League (largely representative of the Muslims in Muslim-minority provinces) and the landed elite in the areas that were to constitute Pakistan. In a sense, this was the death-knell for any meaningful federalism in Pakistan; the Muslim League was now wedded to landed, communal interests along with the incorporation of a deep-rooted suspicion within the Muslim League ranks for multi-ethnic pluralism, in the quest for the articulation of a representative Muslim unity. According to Paula Newberg (1995), contemporary Pakistan’s continuing difficulties to reach concord on issues of representation and democracy are derived in some measure from this early decision to view provincial, economic, and political The Endemic Crisis of Federalism in Pakistan 19 rights through the lens of provincial and feudal interests (Newberg, 1995, p. 19). This was compounded by the centralized administrative structure laid out in the Act of 1935, which was to form the basis for much of pre- and post-independence Pakistani constitutional politics as well as the constitutional experiments of 1956 and 1962.
The challenges to the articulation of a federal structure posed by the multi-ethnic character of the newly-created Pakistan were brought to the fore by the initial wrangling over the composition of the Houses of Parliament. In 1951, the Basic Principles Committee Report set out a draft of a constitution based on the principles of equal representation in the upper house, but left the composition of the lower house unclear. The Bengalis deemed this to be unacceptable, being the majority ethnicity of independent Pakistan. Bengali demands that they have a majority in both houses of parliament were equally unacceptable to the provinces of the western wing, which feared a loss in their economic and political clout to the eastern wing in such a scenario (Adeney, 2007, pp. 104-105). Drafted by the bureaucrat Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, the first (hopelessly delayed) Constitution of 1956, ‘resolved’ this problem by creating parity between the two wings of Pakistan, with 150 seats for each in a unicameral national legislature. Hence, an unstable bipolar federation, the likes of which have been empirically observed to be much more likely to fail (Adeney, 2007, p. 172) was formed. Unlike the norm in multi-ethnic federations, the boundaries of federated units were not revised to accommodate territorially concentrated linguistic communities. Coupled with this was the refusal to recognize ‘regional languages’, barring provinces from adopting languages of their choice (Adeney, 2007, pp. 106-107). Thus, from the perspective of federalism that has been theoretically utilized in this paper, Pakistan’s early constitutional experiments were representative of a breach in the federal covenant and a failure in consensus-building. However, even before elections could be held under this centralized constitutional arrangement, the bureaucratic and military arms of the state colluded to usurp power in 1958 and create an even more centralized political and administrative structure, embodied in the wholly executive-oriented Constitution of 1962. The second constitution, again framed by a representative of the military-bureaucratic oligarchy, did not refer to the federal system in its
description of the name of the state. The constitution completely excluded the provincial list of subjects and created a central list of 49 items, along with a concurrent list. Thus, through these moves, the concentration of power was retained for the President and a unicameral legislature. The provincial governments were to be headed by President-appointed governors 20 Raza Ahmad enjoying enormous power and leverage (Naseer, 2007). The centralized state organization of the 1956 and 1962 constitutions, rife with Punjabi domination, an overdeveloped, all-powerful military-bureaucratic oligarchy and insensitivity to ethnic differences resulted in the tragic breakup of the country in 1971.
The 1973 constitution, however, marked a break in this uninhibited flow of power toward certain interest groups, in that it created a representative parliamentary system offering certain significant concessions to provinces (language, cultural, principal decentralization). However, the preponderance of one province (Punjab) over the rest remained due to its overwhelming representative majority in the Lower House, among other provisions (such as federal and concurrent lists, to be discussed in next section). Moreover, the provincial list continued to be absent in the 197 constitution, with a federal list of 59 subjects and a concurrent list of 47 subjects. However, implementation of the pro-participatory clauses emergedas weak, with institutions such as the Council of Common Interests and the National Finance Commission—created to resolve inter-provincial disputes and provide a platform for democratic discourse—functioning without potency and eventually falling into dormancy. Executive authority continued to retain primacy in most matters (Naseer, 2007). Tables-1 to 3 below represent indicators illustrating some of the regional disparities that have arisen as a result of the lack of a meaningful and equitable federal system.

Need for re-examining federalism in Pakistan


During 2005 and even the beginning of 2006, the attention of Pakistanis has been captured by a number of issues like the disputed construction of various dams, discussions over the National Finance Commission Award, the dispute over the inter-provincial movement of wheat, the issue of royalties to provinces, the violence in Balochistan, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Federally Administered Northern Areas. While a number of talk shows, columns and discussion forums have focused on each one of these problems, perhaps not enough has been said about the common thread that runs between all these issues. This common thread is: Is the federal system of government alive and well in Pakistan, as laid down in the 1973 constitution? One is not quite qualified to answer this question with a yes or no. Instead, one can only ask counter questions based on certain political case studies.

Political case study one:

Citizens would bear witness that the last few years have been dominated by the National Finance Commission Award talks. There have been back and forth discussions of ideas amongst the federating units and the Centre over the NFC. Each year, the citizens are told that the talks failed and thus the federal budget of that year would be prepared using the now defunct award. This has been the practice for a number of years now. Talks over the formula used for distribution of resources between the federating units and the center were again taken up with a lot of hue and cry in 2005 but that also withered away. However, what was different in this financial year is that during the Presidential speech on Jan 17th 2006, the President put an end to this discussion by announcing an increase in the provincial share which will be increased by one percent each year during the next five years. The President claims that he had been authorized to settle the dispute between the federating units over resource allocation and was therefore entitled to announce this during the Presidential speech. However, some political analysts have claimed that this is unconstitutional. According to them, the President under Clause 6 and 7 of Article 160 of the constitution can only amend the award after it is announced and not announce it himself during a televised speech. Leaving aside the debate whether or not this is a constitutional step by the President, the fact is that the NFC Award was a serious bone of contention which has temporarily (or permanently?) been resolved and at least for the next financial year, it will serve as the basis for the development of budgets. This is definitely welcome news but the question remains: The dispute of the NFC Award and the way it was addressed does it fare well for the question of effective federalism in Pakistan?

Political case study two:

The year 2005 and the beginning of 2006 have also been dominated by the question of scarce water resources and the question of building dams. One would not like to discuss whether Dam A or B should be built but instead would like to focus on the fundamental question of the state of federalism in Pakistan which this Dam debate articulated. From a citizens' point of view the dams' debate was confusing to say the least. One read pro -dam statements and against dam statements, about the resolutions of the provincial assemblies etc but one failed to learn how an effective federation tackles the issue of water shortage?

In any federation of the world, disagreements over the distribution and allocation of resources arise. However, if these disputes are allowed to linger on for extended periods of time they are internalized into the people's psyche. This has occurred in Pakistan and that is why a visitor to Balochistan hears statements like "we are the umpteenth province of a Third World Country; our fate can never change"; Punjab being referred to as the "big older brother" in NWFP and Sindh; and about how other provinces are jealous of their progress in Punjab. It is not surprising that such thoughts have been internalized in people psyche as the federating units other than Punjab are still referred to as ``chotai soobai i.e. smaller provinces", provincial autonomy is not granted as laid down in the 1973 constitution, development in provinces is carried out in a way that reinforces alienation ( Gwadar being a case in point) , the concurrent list still exists and the Council of Common Interest has not met. So, at the risk of repeating oneself, the question is: How does the federal system in Pakistan fare?

Political case study three:

The violence in Baluchistan plagues the mind of every Pakistani citizen. Regardless of the fact that there is a military action or targeted action on ``miscreants" the fact is that there is significant unrest in some parts of Balochistan. One of the causes for the violence is that the local population feels that it has been left out of the development loop. Locals cite the development of Gwadar as a recent example of how development without involving the local has been carried out. The Gwadar issue, accordingly the locals, is only the latest in a long list of examples of how Balochistan has been exploited. Limited access of gas in Dera Bugti, the Balochistan district that supplies gas to the rest of the country, is another issue that causes genuine heartburn. Couple this with the fact that Dera Bugti has a low rank in Human Development Index which is prepared by the UNDP. However, while on the subject of Gwadar, Sui etc one must, say that negotiating parties need to be rational while putting forth demands and taking positions. The statement of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti that "only an authentic Baloch should head the Gwadar authority" is a joke. Who will decide who an "authentic" Baloch is? Also, if there is no competent Baloch to be found, then will the position be left vacant? Such repressively absurd statements are harmful for a genuine demand, which is that locals should be involved in their provincial development and that full provincial autonomy must be given to all the federating units, including Balochistan.Military means is no means. Instead political negotiation is key for demanding an effective federal system. Thus the question is: How effective is the relationship between the Center and the federating units, if guns are the preferred language of choice by both sides?

Political case study four

One must also highlight the question of the federally administered areas particularly the Federally Administered Northern Areas. While the newspapers have been filled with Kalabagh, Balochistan and the NFC etc, FANA has been largely ignored. There exists in the area an environment of tension as violence can erupt at any minute. Sectarianism is at its height and there is mutual suspicion between the different ethnic groups living in the area. Every fortnight there is a curfew imposed in the area. The reasons for the violence are many and multi-layered with some analysts terming it as a sectarian conflict , some as an artificially engineered one , some as a question of lack of political rights and some analysts believe that the violence in Gligit is actually a consequence of Pakistan's lack of effective federal system of government. The fact of the matter is that the Northern Areas have been governed by an Islamabad based remote control which is an unsuitable arrangement to say the least. Presently, the Northern Areas has an Islamabad based Chief Executive that is the Minister for Kashmir and Northern Areas and the constitutional rights of the people of the area are usurped. The Northern Areas Legislative Council at best can be described as a congregation of well meaning individuals who cannot be termed as representatives of the people.

The denial of the constitutional rights to this area is particularly perturbing in light of the 1999 Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan clearly directed that the people of FANA must be given self �rule through their representatives and that an independent judiciary would protect the fundamental rights of the people. After the passage of six years, this decision has still not been implemented raising serious questions in the minds of the people of the area. One of the questions is: While FANA burns in the fire of violence, why doesn't the Federal Parliament take the plight of the area seriously and appoints a parliamentary fact finding mission to the area?

These are serious questions that are overwhelmingly present in the minds of the citizens. Individual land feels that these questions are only symptoms of a fundamental cancer: the cancer of an ineffective federal system in Pakistan based on the principle of subsidiarity.In such a scenario, the entire question of federalism in Pakistan needs to be examined so that an effective federal system can be implemented.

Federalism in Pakistan — Presentation Transcript

1. Instability of Federalism in Pakistan M. Nadeem Jahangir 24 March 2009 Institute of Science & Technology Development, Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro-Pakistan.
2. General Definition “ Federalism is a form of government in which powers are divided between the central government for the whole country and governments for parts of the country, better known as federal units (Provinces)” Source: Federalism in Pakistan: Issues & Adjustment by Mansoor Akber Kundi andArbab Mohammad Jahangir OR “ Federalism is a system of government in which powers and functions of governments are divided by a constitution between central government and sub units” (Roger Hillman)
3. System of Federalism Federalism is one which is suitable for heterogeneous societies. It is used to promote cooperation and coordination in the social, political, economic and administrative fields. We see many federal states in the world like US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc. Because it (federalism) represents the sense of federation and unity of any nation. In federalism, the units willing to federate, lose their individual sovereignty and create a single sovereign state. It is a system for division of powers amongst the territorial or administrative units of the states.
4. Federalism in Pakistan 1947: At the time of establishment, Pakistan was geographically unique. Pakistan was a heterogeneous society being divided into a number of ethnic, linguistic and socio-cultural complexities. Then federalism was considered as an important system to secure political harmony in the country. This system was selected, to establish the strong “Federation of Pakistan”. Unfortunately, the bitter relationship was started to built between Federal and Provincial governments from the beginning of Pakistan. The relationship was always been a hurdle in resolving the national issues like NFC Award, Distribution of powers, Autonomy of provinces, Distribution of water, issue of Dams etc.
5. Jinnah about Federalism “ The theory of Pakistan guarantees that federal units of the National Government would have all the autonomy that you will find in the constitution of the United States of America, Canada and Australia. But certain vital powers will remain vested in the Central Government such as monetary system, national defense and federal responsibilities” Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah November 1945
6. Role of Federal Government It is the responsibility of the federal govt. to maintain the supremacy of legislative power over the units. The fundamentals of federalism; Supremacy of the constitution A formal division of powers Independent Judiciary In Pakistan the center has maintain the dominant role over provinces right from beginning. This creates disparity between federal and provincial governments.
7. How disparity came? The factors which might be responsible for making the relationship unreliable between federal and provincial governments are as follows. Governance without constitution. Uneven distribution of powers. Military Rule in Country.
8. 1.Governance with out constitution. Pakistan established in 1947. Governed under an interim constitution of Govt. of India Act 1953. Constitution of 1956 Constitution of 1962 Constitution of 1973 Suspension of constitution means on man rule. Democracy cannot flourish with out continuity. Suspension of Constitution Gen. Zia Z.A Bhutto Yahya Khan Ayub Khan 17 Years Pakistan was governed without constitution 8 Years 6 Months 4 Months 4 Years 4 Years 2 Months Dec 1985 Jun 1977 Apr 1972 Dec 1971 Dec1971 Mar 1969 Jun1962 Oct 1958
9. 2.Uneven distribution of powers. In our country center always had a dominant role over provinces right from the beginning. “ If center in strong then the whole federation is strong ” Autonomous power gives the right to state to create new nation acceding to any other nation or to be a part of any other nation. Pakistan had no any constitution To make the federation strong leaders make the central govt. strong under the interim constitution.
10. 2.Uneven distribution of powers They used federal powers to dismiss provincial governments. They always intervene in the matters of provincial government. Section 51(5), section 92-(A) of Govt. of India Act 1935. Politicians started to misused the administrative powers for political or personal interest. This created a huge disparity.
11. 2.Uneven distribution of powers Dismissal of Dr. Khan Shaib Ministry Govt. of NWFP on 22 August, 1947 under section 51(5) of interim constitution Govt. of India Act 1935. Dismissal of M.A. Khuhro Ministry Govt. of Sindh on April 20, 1948 (under section 51(5)) of interim constitution Govt. of India Act 1935. Dismissal of Mr. Mamdoth Govt. of Punjab on Jan 25, 1949 (under section 92-A) of interim constitution and Governor rule proclaimed. Again dismissal of Mr. Fazal-ul-Haq in 1954 in East Pakistan (under section 92-A).
12. 3. Military Rule in Country Oct 1955 – Dec 1971 – Approx: 15 Years Sep 1978 – Aug 1988 – Approx: 9 Years 24 Years Constitution suspended. No democracy. One man federal government. No role of provincial governments. No parliament means no people’s representation. Rigid decisions by federal governments creates disparity between Federal and people.
13. Conclusion To stabilize we need to reduce disparity between central govt. and provincial govts. To strengthen the democracy we need to have democracy consistently. Consistent democracy would help us not only to filter out the flaws from constitution but also reduces the disparity among the governments.

Can some one throw light on the steps taken by the present government to mitigate differences b/w center and provinces.. Outlines, points in bullet form would do. Thanks