The Legal Framework Order, 2002 and the Issue of Democracy

By Dr Sohail Mahmood

COLUMN READING:

General Musharraf has undertaken a very significant structural change in the political system of Pakistan through the Legal Framework Order, 2002. Notwithstanding his repeated claim Pakistan has definitely moved towards the presidential system with the adoption of the Legal Framework Order. As expected, the Article 58-2(b) clause has been reinstated which empowers him as the chairman of the newly constituted National Security Council (NSC).

Although, the NSC is only a consultative body and is composed of 13 members out of which five are unelected military officers (COAS, CJCSC, Chiefs of Staff of Army, Navy and Air force). The other eight are elected officials. As expected, President Musharraf himself retains the single most important post in Pakistan – the COAS. Is the idea of the NSC good for Pakistan? General Musharraf would have us believe that the NSC is a check on the Prime Minister and other elected officials. This is simply not the case.

The powerful military establishment is firmly under the control of General Musharraf and all real power shall remain with the COAS-President. We are headed for a repeat performance of the Zia-Junejo era where Zia remained the strongman although Junejo was an elected prime minister. We all recall that General Zia finally got rid of his nominated Premier in 1998 when he was showing some independence of thought and action. Zia himself was killed soon after the act of the premier’s dismissal. Subsequent elections brought the PPP in power. That was then. After the coming October elections will the new elected Premier face a different fate? We doubt it.

No politician will be able to challenge the established supremacy of the military establishment in Pakistan. Nevertheless, we support the move not because it provides a “checks-and- balance” to the power of the Premier but because it has finally brought about the establishment of the presidential system in Pakistan. A presidential system is more suited to our needs.

In a parliamentary system the Legislature and the Executive become fused through the Cabinet and the Legislature becomes subordinate to the Cabinet. Remember the Cabinet is composed of the parliamentarians of the largest party in the Legislature because of the previous general elections. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the political party which has won the largest number of seats in this general election. The Cabinet is composed of senior Member of the National Assembly. Thus the Cabinet wears two hats –Ministers and MNAs. Because the Prime Minister is the Leader of the winning party and therefore the House, he or she has guaranteed smooth sailing in the Legislature. The electoral college of the second chambers of the Parliament – the Senate – is the Provincial Assemblies where also the ruling party can have a distinct advantage.

In a presidential system however, the Cabinet is composed of nominees of the President and is not from the Parliament. Thus the President can appoint the best to head the various ministries responsible for the overall administration of the country. At this point we do not know whether General Musharraf, as President, will appoint ministers from only the newly elected National Assembly or otherwise. We hope that he does not. The MNAs should do the job of legislation simply because they were elected for it in the first place. The run for the posts of Ministers as has frequently happened in the past must now end. Also, we have a preference for the presidential system because it is also closer to our Islamic tradition of Amir-ul Muslimeen. Most importantly, a powerful Executive needs to be checked not from within itself but from the outside – the Legislature and the Judiciary. As expected, General Musharraf is silent on the issue of the election of the President himself. We assume that the next President (after General Musharraf) will be directly elected by the people of Pakistan. This is desirable for the sake of the country.

Is the Legal Framework Order good for Pakistan? We think so. Although we ardently support the principle of elected leadership and civilian rule over the military, the fact of the matter is that the Musharraf regime will not leave any time soon. People must be able to distinguish the difference between what is desirable and what is feasible at any point in time. Emotions must not overtake a comprehension of reality. This is a requirement of the scientific mind. In the case of Pakistan this cold calculation leads one to the conclusion that a durable transition towards civilian rule has now to be arranged. Assuming that General Musharraf is telling the truth about his desire to see a strong and democratic Pakistan, the proposed package can provide that vital link from one system to another. Meaning that the military shall only leave power once it has made certain that an alternative leadership is in place which is friendly to it.

At the minimum, the new civilian leadership has to ensure the indemnification of the October 1999 military takeover. This requirement is obvious. Remember that this is a minimum condition and not a sufficient one. The Legal Framework Order, 2002 will provide us with that transition of sorts as it will allow General Musharraf to continue to dominate the political system of Pakistan. He shall surely remain the strongman of Pakistan. Unfortunately, this is now a basic requirement for the political stability in the country. A cool reading of the internal and external situation in Pakistan should lead us to the conclusion that the continued military rule is a forgone conclusion. It will happen no matter what public expectations and inclinations. Given the political crisis, the military regime is not going to leave power any time soon. The military has never given up power easily or willingly. Recall what happened earlier with the Ayub, Yahya, and Zia regimes. This is the ultimate logic of all military takeovers. To expect anything else is unlikely.

No matter what the pretensions of the current military regime, the military is not keen on restoring a democratic order in Pakistan. Why is that so? Simply because at the moment there is no credible political leadership to replace the Musharraf regime. The heads of the three large parties - PPP, PML and MQM are in exile and out of the election race so far. The more important question is why a credible political leadership has failed to emerge in Pakistan. Simply because of the preponderance of power held by the military in Pakistan and the fact that it is the only institution intact in Pakistan. Plus, the political party system is in disarray and lacks visionary and committed leadership itself. It is hardly surprising that the new elected political leadership will remain essentially subservient to the military establishment.

Pakistan has moved towards the Middle Eastern model of entrenched authoritarianism. What then can happen to institutionalize democracy in Pakistan? We can reasonably expect that General Musharraf himself will realize that the country needs an elected political leadership to run its affairs and will voluntary resign within say two to three years from now. This can be expected because if all goes well the transition phase, a robust civilian leadership will emerge to take over real power from the military regime.

The point is that General Musharraf being a patriot and honest man can only think of resignation only if and when a suitable and trusted successor has been groomed by him. The pointers are that a person like Farooq Leghari might fit into this slot. If that happens, Pakistan would be incredibly lucky. Demanding anything else is at best naïve and ideological posturing. Also, this comes from a misreading of the external factors affecting our politics, especially the American and allied interests in Pakistan. We must ask this question once again.

Is there a credible leadership to take over the reigns of the country in about three month’s time? Unfortunately for Pakistan the answer is a straight no.

Why did this happen? In fact, the Musharraf regime did not take any steps to build the institution of political parties in Pakistan. It took several measures to thwart a strong political party from emerging on the political scene. The military could have allowed political parties to participate in the last local government elections but it did not. So much for their understanding of politics and commitment for building a strong Pakistan. The credibility of General Musharraf nosedived after the sham and unconvincing referendum exercise.

A failure of our political parties to reform themselves over the years cannot be solely attributed to the manipulations of the military rulers. All governments, civilian and military alike, have failed at providing Pakistan the basic rudiments of good governance. The people have suffered as a result. We now have to guarantee that the military remains where it belongs – the barracks. This can only be done if a pragmatic attitude is adopted to make the transition safely. After all, we are moving against a legacy of authoritarianism that can be traced back a millennium.

Unfortunately, most politicians are playing politics by attacking the Legal Framework Order just for the sake of opposing General Musharraf. This was expected but also quite unnecessary because criticism for the sake of criticism does not help resolve deep matter of military rule in Pakistan. In this way, the polarization between the military and the people is intensified and hatred and distrust take over. Cool thinking not anger is required today.

The writer is an Asst Professor at Area Study Center, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.