The charter is not an alliance, nor a manifesto

By Ahsan Iqbal

No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come. —-Victor Hugo

THE signing of the Charter of Democracy, first by the leaders of two major mainstream political parties, the PML-N and the PPP, on May 14 and later by other Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) component parties on July 2 marks the beginning of a new era in our democratic history. Though much has been written about it, still I consider it my duty to write on some aspects of it, as I happened to be involved with it right from the beginning till its signing, to clear some misconceptions.

It comes as a surprise to many because we couldn’t develop a democratic culture based on understanding and tolerance in our country. After 1956 constitution was abrogated by Ayub Khan’s martial law regime in 1958, it took us 15 years to arrive at a consensus for formulating a new constitution. The tragedy of 1971 compelled all political actors to rise above narrow partisan interests in order to clear the way for passing of 1973 Constitution with consensus.

Since this constitutional consensus was not preceded by normal democratic experience, it wasn’t matched by the corresponding level of maturity among our political actors. As a result, this new consensus couldn’t be translated into healthy democratic traditions and practices. The passing of 1973 Constitution was immediately followed by a period of extreme partisan politics which weakened its writ. Soon after, there was another interlude of martial law from 1977 to 1988 making the matters worst. During the 1988-1999 period, when democracy was restored under the supervision of a military-backed president, there were heated political emotions and a culture of confrontation.

It was the martial law of General Musharraf in 1999, which gave the final jolt to our political process and marked a turning point in our democratic history. The two major mainstream democratic parties, which developed strong roots during the ‘90s, realising their past shortcomings came together to form the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) for restoration of genuine democracy in the country in 2000. The joint struggle brought the workers and leaders of the two parties in close contact. Common suffering and action helped in removing many misconceptions and misgivings of the past and most importantly both the parties realized that lack of tolerance for each other in the past was one of the major factors which army exploited to advance its political agenda.

It was in this spirit that when Mr Asif Zardari, spouse of the PPP chairperson, was released after long captivity, Mr Nawaz Sharif, leader of the PML-N, called Ms Benazir Bhutto on November 25, 2004 to facilitate her and during the conversation he proposed that it is about time that the two parties came to an agreement about rules for democracy in Pakistan in order to restore genuine democracy and stop military takeovers for all times. Ms Benazir Bhutto welcomed the idea and agreed to respond soon.

On February 10, 2005 when she visited Mr Nawaz Sharif in Jeddah, she brought a set of PPP proposals saying that she had asked her party to prepare some points on the subject as Mian Sahib would like to follow up on our earlier conversation. Both leaders discussed the idea of Charter of Democracy in the context of broad principles and arrived at an understanding, which was signed as a basic document of the charter. After signing the document, both leaders felt the need for moving beyond the declaration of principles and formed a committee comprising of two members from each side to chalk out specific proposals for realising the agreed objectives.

The committee consisted of Sen. Raza Rabbani and Sen. Safdar Abbasi from the PPP and Sen. Ishaq Dar and this writer from PML-N. The committee held a number of meetings in 2005 to develop consensus over the final shape of the charter. In the meeting held in London between Mr Nawaz Sharif and Mr Amin Faheem, Chairman ARD, it was decided that the signing of the charter will take place on May 14, 2006. In the meantime, a media campaign was launched by the government aimed at creating rifts between the two parties and claiming that the charter would never be signed. However, when the two leaders appeared before the media to sign the charter the hopes of the military government were dashed but the democracy-loving people and civil society both at home and abroad hailed it as the second most important democratic event after the signing of the 1973 Constitution in Pakistan.

The charter contains 36 clauses and so far no critic has attacked it for any of its clauses being inappropriate. Most of the criticism has come from misunderstanding the nature of the charter. The charter is neither an electoral manifesto nor an alliance between the two parties. It is an agreement over the rules of the game between two major players in the democratic arena. Just as an agreement between two arch rivals in cricket over what would constitute a no-ball, LBW, run-out or foul doesn’t mean that the two teams have become one team, the two parties in this case have agreed to play better cricket. The charter’s focus is on the minimum common agenda for reforms relating to democratic governance. The matters of foreign policy or other policy areas fall outside the scope of this charter.

The major brunt of attack came from government circles saying how can the two parties which were involved in filing cases against each other in the past can come together to sign any agreement. This argument belies the logic that political process represents evolution of ideas. The Quaid-i-Azam was initially a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity but his subsequent experiences led him to change his views and he became the spokesman for an independent homeland for Muslims of South Asia.

Likewise, if the two parties have, in the light of their past experiences and shortcomings, come to an agreement over an agenda to strengthen the democratic process and national institutions in the country why should skies fall for the rulers. The should instead have welcomed it. Moreover, if Gen Musharraf can co-opt those corrupt elements against whom his government filed cases of corruption to perpetuate his power what’s wrong with the PML-N-PPP cooperation for giving the country a framework for strengthening of democracy and building of national institutions.

It is important to understand the basic objectives and outcomes of the charter. First, it declares long periods of military rule as root cause of our political, social, and economic ills, addresses the fundamental question whether military should be subordinate to the people or vice versa, and for this it makes a defining commitment for establishing people’s right of governance and supremacy to run affairs of the country through restoration of the 1973 Constitution as it existed on October 12, 1999 and repealing the 17th amendment.

However, some non-controversial features like lowering of voters’ age, seats for women and minorities, joint electorate, increase in number of seats shall be retained.

Second, it proposes a transparent, merit-based procedure for appointments of constitutional offices like judges of higher judiciary, head of Accountability Commission, chief election commissioner and members of election commission. Unfortunately, all the three institutions have become highly controversial in our country. So much so, the Supreme Court Bar Association passed a resolution of no-confidence in country’s apex court on matters of constitutional interpretation. Accountability was always challenged by the aggrieved party and alleged to have been driven by political vendetta.

Likewise, after 1985 we haven’t seen a single non-controversial election. Through the charter an attempt has been made to fix these problems. There are three filters for appointment of judges. First, there is a judicial appointments commission comprising such chief justices who didn’t take oath on the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), and representatives of the bar. This commission shall propose a panel of three names for each appointment. The prime minister will forward one name for confirmation to the second filter, which will be a joint parliamentary committee with equal members from treasury and opposition. The committee has another check; it will confirm the name after public hearing in which any citizen can produce evidence of incompetence or corruption against the nominee.

This way an element of public scrutiny has been introduced in a manner as it is practised in the US and the ordinary citizen has also been co-opted in the process. Any judge appointed through this process will not owe favour to any office and will discharge his duties in the light of his/her conscience. Head of the accountability commission, chief election commissioner, and members of election commission shall also be confirmed in a similar manner. The head of public accountability committee in the national and provincial assemblies will be from the opposition benches. It is quite clear that parliamentary committees have been strengthened in COD instead of the office of prime minister.

Third, the parties agreed on a code of ethics and made a solemn pledge to neither look towards military for any political gain nor join a military-sponsored government. The charter also proposes measures to eliminate horse trading and corruption in the election of reserved seats by making them transparent on proportionate representation. It seeks to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to examine to past coups and incidents like Kargil and to fix responsibilities. A National Democracy Commission will be set up to promote democracy and help in capacity building of political parties.

Fourth, the charter seeks to strengthen the federation by promising maximum provincial autonomy, giving a new National Finance Commission award in consultation with provinces, giving equal rights to the people of Northern Areas and Fata, and giving representation to minorities in the Senate.

Fifth, the charter makes a firm commitment to provide improved governance to people, fight poverty and unemployment, provide quality education and health facilities to the ordinary citizen, to curb the culture of lavish expenditures in civil and military institutions, and to promote simplicity at all levels. Those who say that there is no reference to public issues in the charter have probably not read it fully.

Sixth, the charter agrees to set up a neutral caretaker government in the country to hold fair, free, and open elections through an independent and effective election commission.

Lastly, it establishes a framework for civil-military relations, which has been lacking since 1958 coup. It states that political wings of military intelligence agencies shall be abolished; National Security Council will be replaced by Defence Cabinet Committee with a permanent secretariat. Defence budget shall be presented before parliament and military land allotment procedures will be made transparent. Nuclear Command and Control structure will be further strengthened and all military and judicial officers will also make annual declaration of assets like members of parliament.

As it is quite clear, the charter covers all the major issues which afflict our nation. It is a breakthrough in the sense that all major players have for the first time agreed on such an agenda. The civil society has welcomed it strongly. Some say it is too good to believe. It has given a new direction to the course of our politics and clearly drawn lines between two competing visions for the future of Pakistan, a democratic Pakistan as envisaged by our founding fathers and a Garrison Pakistan as envisioned by General Musharraf and his cronies.

Our own history and the history of the world clearly demonstrates that military governance is never part of a solution; it is always part of a problem. We lost half of our country at the hands of our military saviours and today we are again fighting our own people in Balochistan and tribal areas hoping that guns will solve our problems. We can’t swim against the tide of human empowerment and democratisation.

Our generals need to realize that they are on the wrong side. The rising tide of people’s power based on greater consciousness of global realities, awareness and globalisation of media and information shouldn’t be underestimated. The question is whether our generals can follow the example of the generals of Indonesia and Turkey, who despite having a constitutional role, decided to recede from active role in politics. It is time to think proactively and allow the return of democracy through genuinely fair, free, and open election.

The writer is a PML-N leader and a former deputy chairman of Planning Commission.

Reference: DAWN, Encounter, 22 July 2006.

thanx dear for sharing this all with us.
if u can plz have any info on IPI(IRAN PAKISTAN AND INDIA GAS PIPIE LINE) and share that with us will be really very grateful.