Focus on national security council bill

A controversial bill that seeks to create a national security council affording the military a permanent role in Pakistan's governance, and passed by the government in the country's senate on Wednesday, was likely to remain a contentious issue in the long-term, according to an analyst. The National Security Council (NSC) bill, which seeks to create a 13-member council of the same name, was - according to the opposition which has aggressively campaigned against - passed hastily by the national assembly last week in the absence of the opposition who had walked out in protest. "I think that, in the long term, it will remain a contested issue because the mainstream political parties are not going to accept it. They will continue their efforts, or struggle, or political movement, to repeal this law and that will put them in a confrontation with the regime of Pervez Musharraf," Dr Rasul Baksh Rais, a professor of political science at the prestigious Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), told IRIN from the eastern city of Lahore. "If you look at the properties of the NSC, that it is there to advise the president to dissolve the national assembly, with this position, I think it violates the fundamental norms of parliamentary forms of democracy," he added. The 13-member council, to be headed by the president of Pakistan, includes the army's chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff committee and the heads of the military, air force and navy. Also included are the prime minister, the chief ministers of all four of Pakistan's provinces, the chairman of the senate, the speaker of the national assembly as well as the leader of the opposition in the national assembly. "There are defence, or security issues, which are dealt with in allcountries by committees or bodies which are subservient to the parliament. This is a body that is dominated by the military. So we don't accept this plea that it is to prevent military takeovers. Actually, it perpetuates military takeovers," I.A. Rehman, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), told IRIN from Lahore. "The NSC is really not needed in this country. There are already existing channels and means through which recommendations can be passed on. You don't need yet another body to do that," Saba Khattak, the director of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), a leading Pakistani think-tank, told IRIN in the capital, Islamabad. VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC NORMS In parliamentary forms of government, the power to dissolve the assemblies rested with the prime minister, whose advice the president was then bound to follow, Rais explained. "In that sense, it [the NSC] does not go well with the well-established democratic norms of a parliamentary form of government. Because, ultimately, it is the parliament that is powerful, that decides - by itself - whether it is going to continue to function or whether it is going to dissolve," he continued. If, in a parliamentary democracy, the president were to lose a vote of confidence - or, if that president thought that parliament should go back to the public for a fresh mandate - a decision would have to be taken according to the recommendation of the leader of the majority in parliament, Rais said. "So, in my opinion, it is a violation of that norm," he emphasised. Whenever a new institution was created, the question was always: "Why is it needed?" Rehman asked. "For about 20 years, the Pakistani military has been saying that the affairs of the state cannot be left to elected representatives of the people and that they should share powers with the military. And they keep coming back to it," he fumed. "So they have created an institution which will be overseeing everything that is happening in Pakistan. And it is a policy-dominated institution. So, it amounts to giving a permanent place for the military in determination of policies, which should be the function of the parliament alone. So, it will be a drag on the process of democratisation and the exercise of majority by elected representatives," he said. "I think the consultative body is the parliament now. What consultation does it need? With whom? And for what?" he asked. SELF-DEFEATING "I staunchly believe that for democracy to get on in this country we need fewer people from the military involved in politics," Khattak said. "In the past also, we've had similar bills pushed through, where the opposition walked out. The government has taken advantage of such situations and gone ahead and imposed it. That is not a consultative way to function in a democracy. It's self-defeating," she emphasised. Rais agreed, saying he thought it was the same way that constitutional amendments were pushed through in the recent past. "I think the motive is to cut short the debate in the media and outside and to send a message to politicians 'that this is a law and you have to accept it'," he said. From 1988, when military ruler General Zia-ul-Haq's 11-year-reign came to an end in a mysterious plane explosion, until 1999, when current president Pervez Musharraf, also the chief of the powerful military, came to power in what is referred to as a bloodless coup, general elections had been held four times by 1996. Although the term of an elected government in Pakistan is scheduled to last for five years, each government was dismissed within three years -- in one case, within two years - on charges that varied from excessive corruption to extreme power-mongering. In each case, a constitutional amendment introduced by Zia-ul-Haq - which gave the president powers to dismiss the assemblies at will - known as the 8th amendment was used by civilian presidents. Counting Musharraf's tenure as military head of government until general elections were held in 2002, Pakistan has been ruled by army generals for almost half of its 56-year existence. The NSC bill, which was sent to the president for approval following its endorsement by parliament, now only needs Musharraf's assent to become law.