Historic Indeed – by Battar Sattar
Source The News
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Our nation has grown accustomed to receiving even delightful news with suspicion, if not disbelief. But the 18th Constitutional Amendment that proposes significant changes to our Constitution and our polity is probably the most momentous event in our contemporary history that deserves to be celebrated without cynicism. This is not simply a move to restore the Constitution of 1973 to its original form or transfer powers usurped by dictators back to the prime minister. It introduces normative, substantive and procedural changes to our fundamental law that will heal and strengthen the Constitution and provide a more sustainable framework to strengthen the relationship between the three institutional pillars of the state, the federating units and the centre, as well as the citizen and the state.
We must also acknowledge our measly approach to attributing credit. In this particular case our entire elected political class has won commendation. How can there be no legitimate disagreement when parliament sets out to undertake a task as Herculean as introducing 101 amendments to the Constitution? The unanimous agreement on the 18th Constitutional Amendment Bill is thus no mean achievement. It was not for Asif Zardari to surrender his presidential powers but for parliament to reassign them exercising its constitution-amending authority. Nevertheless, the draft amendment bill could never have seen the light of day had Mr Zardari decided to sabotage it using his authority and discretion as head of the PPP.
The PML-N had started out calling for immediate repeal of the 17th Amendment and was less interested in addressing the subject of provincial autonomy together with erasing Musharraf’s legacy. But it relented and agreed to discuss the repeal of the 17th Amendment and augmentation of provincial autonomy through the same constitutional amendment. While Nawaz Sharif’s press conference over the issue of judicial appointments and renaming of NWFP could have become a spoiler, sanity prevailed all around. The PPP, the ANP and the MQM refrained from mudslinging and name-calling, the PML-N backed off from an extreme position, and the overall spirit of consensus-oriented negotiations within the Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reform prevailed. The ANP agreed to a hyphenated name for NWFP in acknowledgment that many who comprise the province are not Pashto-speaking. The MQM might have wanted a smaller federal legislative list along with the dissolution of the concurrent list, but agreed to take one step at a time.
Each member of the PCCR deserves credit along with the leaders of their respective parties who afforded them the autonomy to agree to such wide-ranging amendments, amidst a national political environment that is rife with constant strife and a party culture that is extremely autocratic. But if ever an individual can be claimed as indispensable, it would have to be Raza Rabbani for seeing the 18th Amendment through. One cannot think of any other person within the fold of the ruling party who has the ability, sagacity, probity and calm (almost stoical in nature) to shepherd a process that demanded constant application of all these leadership qualities. Asif Zardari’s injudicious opposition to Senator Rabbani’s elevation as Senate chairman has turned out to be a blessing in disguise for this nation. Imagine the pits we would have been in had a Farouk Naik (author of the PPP’s judges’ restoration debacle) been in charge of the PCCR!
Coming back to the content of the 18th Amendment, it must be reiterated that a constitutionally weakened Zardari or the ability of Nawaz Sharif to get elected prime minister for a third time are by no means the most significant aspects of this bill. As a normative measure this amendment proposes to heal the injured morality of our Constitution – not religious morality as the word ‘morality’ is widely understood to imply, but removal of contradictions introduced into the text by khaki usurpers. In this regard the amendment of Articles 6 and 270 are noteworthy. Article 6 will explicitly prohibit judges from validating or justifying unconstitutional interventions into the working of an elected civilian government. And Article 270 will clarify that unconstitutional actions of dictators purportedly endorsed and underwritten by self-serving judges were never valid.
It is arguable that these changes might mean little to an adventurous khaki overwhelmed by the ‘saviour’ instinct. But removal of validation clauses that justified ‘extra-constitutional’ changes to the Constitution cleanses our fundamental law and makes it internally integrated. The 18th Amendment further introduces certain procedural or clean-up changes. These are too numerous to be recounted here. But inclusion of strict time frames for deciding the issue of disqualification of a member of parliament or limiting the size of the cabinet are examples. The PCCR has attempted to introduce various commonsense amendments into the Constitution that regulate the discretionary authority vested in holders of various constitutional positions liable to be abused and capable of fermenting political crises.
The substantive changes merit detailed comment and can’t even be listed here exhaustively. But if one were to identity the four most consequential, they would be (i) introduction of the fundamental right to education, (ii) move towards realising the promise of effective provincial autonomy, (iii) strengthening the independence of judiciary and (iv) transferring discretionary powers of the president back to the prime minister. The new Article 25A obliges the state to provide free and compulsory education to all children between ages five and fifteen. This is by itself an epochal change marking an overdue yet necessary first step to unlock the potential of Pakistan’s youth. In a country with half the population below the age of 18, genuine and effective budgetary and administrative measures to ensure that each and every citizen receives free high school education could foster a social revolution.
To further provincial autonomy, the 18th Amendment proposes to enhance the fiscal, administrative and legislative authority of the federating units. By erasing the concurrent legislative list, granting provinces greater control over their natural resources and proceeds, enhancing the role of the Senate and the Council of Common Interests, making it harder for the president to clamp emergency rule over a province and requiring that governors be residents of their respective provinces, the PCCR has begun implementing the promise made to provinces in 1973 and rejected the doomsday predictions of ensuing chaos due to a loosening of the centre’s control. How effectively provincial assemblies will use the exclusive authority to write laws on subjects listed in the concurrent list (which they previously shared with the centre) is debatable. But this change was essential symbolically as the demand for greater provincial autonomy in Pakistan had become tied to abolition of the concurrent list.
The PCCR had paid attention to practical matters by (i) including some concurrent list subjects within Part II of the federal legislative list, (ii) enhancing the role of the Council of Common Interests in relation to subjects of shared legislative interest between the centre and provinces, (iii) protecting existing federal laws related to concurrent list subjects, and (iv) appointing an Implementation Commission to oversee the transition over the next year. But there is no doubt that with empowerment comes responsibility. The provinces will have greater control over their fate and fortune. But they will need to quickly acquire the ability and the mindset to optimally exercise their legislative and administrative authority to protect and benefit their citizens. Otherwise the gap in the quality of life afforded to residents of various provinces could increase instead of narrowing.
And in this regard the role of the Implementation Commission will be crucial. The transfer of authority from the presently bloated federal government to the provinces is a huge administrative and legislative project, which will require introduction of new provincial departments and new and amending legislation. To guarantee that the promise of provincial autonomy doesn’t turn sour, the Implementation Commission must be appropriately empowered and headed by someone as fair-minded, diligent and capable as Raza Rabbani.
Part 2, published in The News:
Historic indeed
Monday, April 12, 2010
By Babar Sattar
There are two types of arguments against the abolition of the concurrent list. The first one is an extension of the lingering post-colonial paternalism and related obsession with control. A charming yet unpersuasive Kashmala Tariq vociferously implored the National Assembly to retain the concurrent list and save the uniformity of laws across provinces. The 18th Amendment already includes a provision enabling the Council of Common Interests to formulate laws in the realm of criminal procedure and evidence. Will all hell break loose merely because provinces promulgate different laws in other areas? Homogeneity as an overarching concept within the field of law is overrated anyways. What is essential for the rule of law in a federation is not uniformity, but legal certainty.
The United States has 50 different states and 50 sets of laws and yet it manages to survive as a country and speak with one voice on important matters. The provinces of Pakistan already have different laws in various areas. For example, all the four provinces have their own rent restriction laws, along with Islamabad and the cantonments. The Supreme Court recently decided that upon expiry of a rent agreement the contractual tenancy doesn’t automatically transform itself into statutory tenancy under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, which is the case under provincial rent law. Such differences do not engender chaos so long as there is legal certainty and people have the ability to order their affairs accordingly.
The ability of provinces to formulate their own laws might be a blessing that could enable some provinces to take a lead in incorporating progressive legislation. Two-thirds of the countries of the world have banned the death penalty and yet there isn’t even a debate in Pakistan over the pros and cons of retaining capital punishment. Many in this country believe that Ziaul Haq’s Hudood laws are abhorrent and need to be scrapped. Yet simultaneously building such social consensus across all the four provinces will be hard. But the possibility of a province such as Sindh taking the lead in grabbing our religious bigots by the horns is much higher.
The end of the concurrent list could also encourage provinces to introduce progressive commercial laws to attract business. For example, the state of Delaware in the US is a jurisdiction of choice for businesses due to its commercial jurisprudence. Pakistan’s provinces could similarly engage in healthy competition to emerge as the preferred territory for commercial activity.
The second argument against the abolition of the concurrent list – that neither the government nor any political party has done any homework on the impact of this huge change – is more logical and convincing. This is why the role, authority and composition of the Implementation Commission are crucial. Completing this transition within a span of one year is an ambitious target to start with. And the oversight commission should thus be equipped with ample authority as well as legal and administrative expertise to accomplish the needful.
The 18th Amendment is also commendable for strengthening the independence of the judiciary by introducing a consultative, thorough and transparent mechanism for judicial appointments. While the composition of the judicial commission gives serving judges a dominant say in selecting future judges, the process will ensure that no one individual or institution has arbitrary authority to determine who gets to wear the robes in Pakistan. Some lawyers do not want a representative of the bar council to serve on the commission for they hold bar council politics in low esteem. Others do not want the law minister or the attorney general to have any say, to exclude the ruling government from the process. Still others are averse to parliamentarians having any role in the matter. And we have all suffered poor choices of successive chief justices since they have had an exclusive authority to pick judges.
Notwithstanding the hangover of the lawyers’ movement and uber-enthusiastic bar leaders eager to grab a seat on the negotiation table in all political matters (yet completely unwilling to discipline and reform the bar itself), and the various writ petitions that are likely to be filed challenging the 18th Amendment, the new Article 175A is a major improvement over the existing mechanism for judicial appointments. Further, the legitimate creation of the Islamabad High Court is an extremely welcome step. There was no logical reason to continue to treat the federal capital as part of Punjab. And an effective and efficient high court in the capital comprising the most able judges from all four provinces and Islamabad will not only address the issue of inordinate delays in resolution of legal issues emanating from Islamabad but will also help develop specialised jurisprudence in regulatory and government-related matters.
The merit of erasing 58(2)(b) and transferring the president’s discretionary authority to make key executive appointments to the prime minister hardly needs any elaboration. The office of the president has traditionally played second fiddle to the khaki leadership controlling levers of powers from behind the curtain. While not relevant in the present scenario, given the identity of our president and the prime minister, this structural change will strengthen the office of the prime minister, parliament as well as democracy in the medium to long term. But Zardari-haters should take pause, as this transfer of authority will hardly dilute the power he presently exercises. We must remember that Mr Zardari’s power springs not from the Constitution but his position as party head in a political culture largely defined by autocratic tendencies of party leaders and sycophancy of party members.
Just as Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain will continue to enjoy whimsical authority to dictate all party decisions until democracy begins to permeate through political parties as well, let us be clear that Mr Zardari will have his handprints on all government decisions while the PPP is in power. Further, the end of 58(2)(b) will not fix our civil-military imbalance overnight and neither will the augmented treason clause alone stop wannabe dictators in their tracks. These changes are incremental steps that will fortify the national consensus against praetorianism. But in the ultimate resort it will be (i) continuity of the political process and democracy, (ii) performing civilian governments that become conduits for transmitting the fruits of democracy to ordinary citizens, and (iii) dexterous baby steps in reclaiming the political and economic turf that the military has annexed to itself, that will prevent military intervention in politics.
The 18th Amendment squarely addresses the centre-province divide and indirectly helps fix lopsided civil-military structures. But it doesn’t touch upon the problem of religious obscurantism. While the name of Ziaul Haq has been deleted and provisions of Article 62 and 63 have been rationalised, the requirement that parliamentarians must be ‘sadiq and ameen’ has been retained. It appears that as a nation we are still not prepared to dispassionately debate the role of religion within our state and society or the need to exclude moral judgments and claims of religious righteousness from the domain of law. And this is what highlights the limits of constitutional texts.
The 18th Amendment deserves to be applauded for it improves the legal framework upon which the socio-economic contract between the citizen and the state is founded. But let us also remember that the Constitution is ultimately a text, and no text is self-executing. It is for our executive, our legislature, our judiciary and each one of us to ensure that the rights promised by our Constitution are protected and defended, and enjoyed by all citizens. There always remain gaps between principles and their practice. But this cannot be an argument to demonise principles themselves. Let us celebrate the improvement in the theory of our fundamental law, with the resolve to take meaningful measures and make its promises come true.
(Concluded)
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. Email: [email protected]
http://thenews.com.pk/arc_news.asp?id=9&arc_date=4/12/2010