Nawaz Sharif’s go-it-alone style could jeopardise his government, again!
What threatens democracy most is Nawaz Sharif’s unchanging style of governance. The decision making process under the present government is reminiscent of the 1990s when Sharif’s small kitchen cabinet made all policies. The cabinet was treated as a decorative fixture and National Assembly as no more than a rubber stamp. The 14th amendment was enacted especially to debar PML-N’s own legislators from questioning any decision taken by this coterie of hand-picked individuals that also included close relatives.
The 18th amendment enacted in 2010 has rectified the parliamentary system by making the elected government de jure policy maker. However, the real transfer of power from the army to the civilian set up has yet to take place. Time has come to make the civilian government the de facto policy maker also. The elected government is expected to be in the driving seat when it comes to managing foreign relations, making strategic assessments, debating budgetary allocations, and devising policies to cope with extremism and terrorism.
Nawaz Sharif cannot make the crucial changes through an executive order alone. Despite the various failures and shortcomings of the PPP led coalition that ruled from 2008 to 2013, it goes to its credit that while enacting the crucial constitutional amendments it managed to take the entire opposition along. This underscores the fact that only a consensual democratic polity can build bridges among adversaries and create favourable conditions for the resolution of conflicts.
As Nawaz tries to reclaim the political turf occupied by unelected bodies for decades he needs to take all stakeholders on board and bring about changes through persuasion than diktat.
Policies carry weight when these are devised after thorough debate and persuasion and enjoy wide support. Those seen to be lacking consensus can be flouted by powerful institutions.
But does Sharif have the ability to take others along? The prime minister remains inaccessible even to most of the cabinet members. Sometime federal ministers have to report to and take instructions from Shahbaz Sharif who has practically tuned into a deputy prime minister.
The prime minister does not give any importance to parliament. Nawaz Sharif who waited 14 years to enter in the parliament has come to the national assembly only eight times in about a year. He has continued to neglect the sittings despite the opposition tabling a symbolic motion calling upon him to vacate the prime minister’s seat for his prolonged neglect of the house. During this period he has not attended a single sitting of the senate. This led the upper house to adopt a resolution requiring the Prime Minister to attend the session at least once a week. Sharif disdainfully ignored the suggestion.
Policies carry weight when these are devised after thorough debate and persuasion and enjoy wide support. Those seen to be lacking consensus can be flouted by powerful institutions. What happened to PPP’s decision to bring ISI under the interior ministry? The PMLN chief however isn’t convinced of the need to take the opposition on board or persuade the parliament.
Sharif’s attitude to the opposition is characterised by arrogance buttressed by the big mandate that turned out to be PMLN’s bane in 1999. Would the past repeat itself this time too? The PMLN chief’s attitude is infectious. His kitchen cabinet is no less hubris ridden. The interior minister has attended only one session of the senate only to show bad temper and refuse to apologise over providing faulty information. He now considers it infra dig to go to senate and sends minister of state to represent him in the upper house. Ishaque Dar, another member of the kitchen cabinet, becomes edgy when media puts question to him and is keen to avoid journalists.
Despite Sharif’s ‘couldn’t-care-less’ attitude, a major section of the opposition has offered to continue to support the government against any attempt at destabilisation by offstage players. Policies meanwhile continue to be made without consultation with the opposition despite repeated demands for being taken on board. Under the circumstances the support from opposition cannot last long.
The party leadership has never tired of claiming that it practices good governance. A little before 2003 elections the PMLN’s official website claimed that under previous governments there was an extensive “crisis of governance” in the country and that governance was “almost in a state of collapse”. The website talked about “inappropriate and whimsical appointments, postings and promotions” and “unfulfilled promises.” With PMLN nearly a year in power, what one sees is much more of the same.
There is no transparency about anything, least of all in appointments of the heads of giant government controlled corporations and autonomous and statutory bodies some of which are required to undertake transactions involving expenditures of billions of rupees every year. During the caretaker setup the Supreme Court had directed the government, on a petition by PMLN leader Khwaja Safdar, to constitute a commission for their appointments of the heads of these organisations to ensure transparency. A notification was subsequently issued by the government in pursuance of the apex court’s decision. In January this year the government issued an executive order excluding over two dozen powerful bodies from the notification. The order was set aside by Islamabad High Court. In fact the Supreme Court has intervened on several occasions during the past eleven months to set aside appointments made against rules.
Sharif’s attitude to the opposition is characterised by arrogance buttressed by the big mandate that turned out to be PMLN’s bane in 1999. Would the past repeat itself this time too?
There is a tendency in the PMLN government to get rid of dissenting officials in autonomous bodies and government departments. Prominent examples include the removal of the three chairmen of Pemra, Nadra and PCB and sending Accountant General of Pakistan Revenue (AGPR) on forced leave. The dismissals were challenged in the court leading to the reinstatement of Chairmen Pemra and Nadra and the striking down of the orders in the case of the AGPR. Tensions with the apex court are therefore on the rise.
There is little financial transparency under the PMLN government. Soon after the presentation of the budget an illegal financial transaction by the government came to the notice of the Supreme Court. The finance ministry had transferred Rs62 billion belonging to the Universal Services Fund (USF) to the Federal Consolidated Fund (FCF) in violation of law causing a loss of Rs7 billion a year to national exchequer. The Supreme Court described the act as “criminal misappropriation” and “a loot”.
Avoiding holding local government elections is yet another example of bad governance. It is highly symptomatic that major political parties, led by the PMLN, are not inclined to hold the local government elections during the second democratic term also. Concentration of powers amounts to alienating the masses instead of empowering them. The government continues to confront the Supreme Court on the issue of LG elections also.
The government is supposed to arbitrate to stop differences between institutions developing into clashes. This is what Sharif should have done in the dispute between Geo and army. A timely intervention would have led to the stoppage of the Geo showing the picture of the ISI chief. What several party leaders did meanwhile created the perception of being partisan instead and added to the tensions with the army.
At a time when statesmanship is required to strengthen the democratic system, what the government is doing is to enter into unnecessary clashes with institutions out of sheer brashness.
