Focus on the governance impact of Musharraf’s vote of confidence

The unprecedented vote of confidence taken by Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf on January 1 would mean a continuation of the policies that were initiated and then followed during Musharraf’s period as military ruler, according to a former president of Pakistan. “This vote of confidence, as the legitimisation of Musharraf’s government, would mean a continuation of those policies in a more determined and more sustainable manner,” Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari, who served as president of Pakistan from 1993 to 1997, told IRIN in the capital, Islamabad on Friday. “It means that whatever reforms were undertaken in the economic sector, mainly macro reforms like the strengthening of the State Bank of Pakistan, giving it greater autonomy; like following the advice of the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other donor agencies regarding restructuring of the economy, will continue, making it more apolitical, opening up opportunities for trade and improving the climate for foreign and local investment in Pakistan,” Leghari explained. The veteran, Oxford-educated politician, now a parliamentary ally of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Q) coalition, heads his own political party, the Millat party, which he formed after resigning from the presidency in December 1997 in protest against then prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s often controversial style of governance. Leghari said he felt that policies regarding some of the other issues taken up on the governance side would also continue such as the downsizing of a number of institutions - like banks, for instance - where golden handshakes were given to employees, reducing the number of people employed. “Now, since those policies would also continue, there would be no jarring effect on governance restructuring issues. It would mean that they would become more institutionalised,” he maintained. VOTE-OF-CONFIDENCE Fourteen months on from general elections held in Pakistan in October 2002, as part of a public commitment made by army chief Musharraf after he assumed power in October 1999 in what is referred to as a “bloodless coup” which said that he would ensure the holding of elections inside three years, the Pakistani president has seen his position - and rule - legitimised as the result of a vote-of-confidence normally reserved for elected heads-of-state. He will now be able to remain in power until the end of the year 2007. The move followed weeks of hectic, often stymied, negotiations with the six-party religious alliance known as the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) that resulted in a compromise deal at the end of December with Musharraf agreeing to relinquish the post of army chief - which he currently also holds, along with the presidency - by the end of 2004, thereby meeting one of the MMA’s key demands and ending a deadlock that had paralysed parliament for more than a year. Just this Wednesday, Musharraf approved a constitutional amendment, also part of the deal with the MMA, that endorsed his right to stay on as president till 2007, after it had been adopted by both parliament and the Senate - although opposition legislators from the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) boycotted proceedings, saying the amendment gave too much power to the president - as well as re-inserting a controversial clause that gives any president the right to dismiss parliament at will. The bill is now a part of the 1973 constitution. “What this means is that the authoritarian state model that has been implanted will continue. All those that feel this will lead to a strengthening of democracy are barking up the wrong tree,” I. A. Rehman, an international award-winning journalist and the director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), told IRIN in Islamabad. “The president is now the most powerful president in the history of this country, more powerful, even, than [the late General] Zia [ul-Haq; who ruled the country from 1977 till his death in a mysterious air crash in 1988]” he added. The government had successfully broken up the opposition, Rehman said. “The MMA makes pretenses of being in the opposition but it is now, in fact, an ally of the government. That means that more than half of the opposition has been neutralised and the remaining is not in a position to pose a challenge,” he maintained, adding that he felt that when a government became this powerful, “the space for governance shrinks”. “This essentially means that the more secure and powerful the government feels, the less inclined it is to listen to the people. I don’t see that the people have gained anything, it is the government that has gained everything,” Rehman stressed. DEVOLUTION OF POWER “I consider the devolution of power and decentralisation to be the most radical and important reform undertaken by Musharraf’s government,” Leghari stressed, adding that at the time his party was formed, almost a year and half before the current president took over, he and his colleagues had also considered devolution and decentralisation to be most necessary for Pakistan. “It was difficult in lieu of the overbearing power of the bureaucracy at that time to go through with it, but Musharraf’s government went through with it,” he said, adding that while the new system appeared to have flaws that needed to be corrected, it was a far-reaching reform that would have an impact on governance into the future. The protection of that [reform] through an amendment in the constitution would give sufficient time to the new system to establish its roots and for the reform to become irreversible, which was important from the point of view of empowering the people and sustainable democracy in the future, Leghari said. The devolution plan’s critics, however, feel differently. “Experiences with decentralisation in Pakistan have shown us that decentralisation does not happen to empower people, it happens in order to legitimise the power of unelected, non-representative military governments at the centre,” Shandana Khan Mohmand, a teaching fellow who specialises in development studies at the prestigious Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), told IRIN from the eastern city of Lahore. “This is not the first time it’s been done in this country, nor is it the first time that a military ruler has done it,” she added, referring to a similar initiative taken by former military ruler Ayub Khan, soon after he assumed power in the late 1950s. But Leghari said that this time things now appeared to be heading in a different, more cohesive direction. “There’s a subset clause which allows the present system to continue without a break for six years; and, if there’s a change required, it can only be done with the approval of the president,” he explained. SUSTAINABLE DEMOCRACY The re-insertion on a permanent basis of a controversial clause that allows the president to dismiss parliament at will was important on two fronts, Leghari said. “The re-introduction of article 58/2-B into the constitution on a permanent basis through an amendment in the constitution is important, I feel, for sustainable democracy and for preventing military interventions in the future,” he said “I, myself, was opposed to it, although I had to resort to it to save Pakistan from default and also to save Pakistan from direct military intervention,” Leghari said, referring to his November 1996 decision to dismiss the Benazir Bhutto-led PPP government. The former president himself was associated with the PPP from the early 1970s until his resignation from the presidency and subsequent decision to create another political entity. “We feel that military intervention, once it takes place, is very difficult to undo. With 58/2-B, the possibility of this happening, of military intervention will become more remote, much more difficult,” Leghari explained, pointing to at least three occasions in the past, with 58/2-B was in vogue, when the military could have intervened. “It did not, because 58/2-B was available, as a safety valve,” he added. With these powers, we feel that there will be a better balance between the executive, within the executive, and there will be greater surety that other important pillars of our state, like the judiciary, for instance, will have a better position to uphold its role as guarantor of the supremacy of the court of law, Leghari said. “All these things are going to help strengthen democracy on a sustainable basis. Democracy is not just a word or not something that is merely written into a law or into the constitution. Democracy is also a way of life: it’s a culture that has to be imbibed, that has to be established,” he emphasised.