Salman Tarik Kureshi

It is not just an issue of the rights of the judiciary or the president or parliament or any other state entity. Institutions have been emasculated and conventions have fallen into disrepair. All these had to be re-envisaged and put into place. There is a whole raft of serious constitutional distortions that needs to be untangled and reaffirmed

Aging anglophiles will recall an
outstanding BBC programme from the early 1960s called ‘That was the week that was’. Compèred by David Frost, ‘TW3’, as it was abbreviated, was an irreverent run through of the happenings of each week that tore acerbic strips off the British establishment of the time. Now, the utterances this author records in these pages are no Swiftian satirical barbs nor does one make any pretensions to the mordant wit of David Frost. But the happenings of the last few days need no Swift or Frost, nor a Rangeela or Ustad Daaman, to lampoon their absurdity.

The world must be chuckling up its sleeves at the antics of those in authority in this country. I do not believe any of our great and not-so-great governmental leaders — whether of the government, the (ir?)responsible opposition, the legislature, the judiciary, the political parties, the media — can claim innocence from the folly of taking careful aim and flawlessly shooting themselves in the foot. The alacrity with which all our worthy notables are in the habit of assuming pointlessly confrontational postures is remarkable. The consequences for the people and the nation? Well, who cares!

The media across the land boiled and bubbled with comments on our continuing open season on silliness. This author is thereby absolved of the need to add further to these. However, it is necessary to state that, given the multi-dimensional mess with which periodic spasms of unconstitutional rule has left us, there are certainly a number of levels at which the major state actors absolutely need to work together, regardless of their differences or their ambitions or their clashing spheres of influence.

There are three broad dimensions along which the country has been, and remains, in urgent need of repair: (a) restoration of constitutional basics and the rule of law, (b) the conclusive defeat of violent extremism, and (c) economic recovery and realignment of the national economy. Consider how we have fared so far.

Let me begin with the issue of that much mauled Constitution, which is in fact the very cement binding the portions of this state together. Now, the level of legislative action that relates to the basic structure of a country’s institutions is normally a function of constitutional conventions or constituent assemblies, not of parliaments, nor the governments responsible to parliaments. It has been Pakistan’s tragedy that, repeatedly in the country’s history, the two roles have become confused, with consequences such as the failure and dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly in 1954 and the bloody denouement of 1970-71. However, 1973 was different and a durable Constitution was given to the nation. Unfortunately, such regressive enactments as the 8th and 17th Amendments, respectively authored by Generals Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf, not to mention the four sets of PCOs attributable to the same two worthies and the other multiple mutilations over the years, have rent apart the country’s basic framework.

It is not just an issue of the rights of the judiciary or the president or parliament or any other state entity. Institutions have been emasculated and conventions have fallen into disrepair. All these had to be re-envisaged and put into place. There is a whole raft of serious constitutional distortions that needs to be untangled and reaffirmed. The first step would have been to dismantle clause by clause both Zia’s 8th Amendment and Musharraf’s 17th Amendment. An omnibus 18th Amendment was and is needed, which would additionally tackle the issues of provincial autonomy and the Concurrent List. The first task, then, was to draft this omnibus Amendment and ensure that it passes the National Assembly and Senate with the requisite two-thirds majorities.

Now, for preparing and passing this kind of composite Amendment, it is not necessary that the political parties be tied together in the holy matrimony of a coalition government. What is required is cooperation for a common cause, and not collective authority. But, despite the PPP co-chairman’s obsession with coalitions and his ‘friendly’ opposition, the pace of movement towards constitutional revitalisation has been less than snail-like.

Now, as to the second dimension, let us understand that the maintenance of law and order is the minimum task of a government, any government, formed by any party or group of parties. In Pakistan’s case, the regimes of Generals Zia and Musharraf have bequeathed us an extraordinary legacy of disorder and extremist terror — not to mention fanatical bigotry, proliferation of weapons and a hard drugs culture. Still worse, the sovereignty of the Pakistan state was bartered away and whole regions of the country handed over to bands of pre-civilisational savages who have mounted a bloodthirsty armed insurrection against the state of Pakistan.

On this front at least, a beginning has been made and a turning of the tide, largely driven by the armed forces themselves, has been seen. However, these same armed forces have made clear the limits to which they are prepared to go. The chief custodian of the nation’s security and peace has voiced his institution’s support for three of the very doctrines that have led us to the situation in which we find ourselves. The first of these, the compulsion to seek some kind of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, is the very compulsion that took us into the war against the Soviet Union in 1979, and which devastated Afghanistan and then mid-wifed the Taliban. The second is India-centrism and the un-nuanced reference to India as ‘the enemy’, in disregard of the imperatives of Pakistan’s intimate geographical, historical and cultural proximity to that rising world power. The third doctrine is implicit in the statement to the effect that “we judge the enemy by his capabilities not his intent”. Now, it is a good thing to be in a state of preparedness; but a doctrine thus enunciated is a prescription for a crippling keeping-up-with-the-Joneses arms race. Look around and see how much of the world has veered right away from militarism, and for reasons that are glaringly obvious. The world (yes, even the developed world!) can no longer bear the escalating costs of a modern army and weapons systems that become obsolete even as they are being installed. The inevitable consequence of arms races is economic collapse — even political collapse, as happened in the once mighty USSR — leaving nothing to be defended.

And this brings us the third dimension of the national agenda, reconstruction and re-envisioning of a wrecked economy. Pseudo-populist slogan-mongering notwithstanding, the government’s track record here has not been without merit. In fact, the selection of the present finance minister was clearly one of the better decisions made by this government. But, let it be clear, what has been done so far is of the nature of necessary repair work, essential maintenance. We see no sign yet of an economic vision for the future nor the strategies towards implementing that vision. This must begin with a confession of our appalling backwardness in a developing world and an enunciation of the human and social objectives that must guide our economic strategies.

To return to the BBC programme mentioned, since the teapot storms of this last week demonstrate no progress along any of these axes, we should perhaps label it: “The week that wasn’t”.

The writer is a marketing consultant based in Karachi. He is also a poet