Democracy waylaid by Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri
There are no two opinions about the fact that our governance and electoral system — a legacy of the colonial era — have inbuilt avenues of corruption and are the biggest hurdles in establishing a truly democratic polity capable of delivering to the masses. The inadequacies and flaws in the systems have been ruthlessly exploited both by the military dictators and the politicians at the cost of the masses. The result is that, according to a survey conducted under the BISP programme, 45.7% people in the country live below the poverty line even after sixty seven years of independence. The country also had to endure crisis after crisis. The present political turmoil in the country is also a consequence of the criminal apathy of the successive rulers to reform these systems.
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. So no matter how many elections are held under the present electoral system, the results would be the same. Our parliaments would remain dominated by the feudal lords, industrialists and other elitist classes. The system is prone to rigging by individuals and the sitting governments. Same is the case with the system of governance. The country cannot tread the path envisioned by its founding father until and unless these systems were reformed. Therefore one can hardly take an issue with the rationale behind the ‘Azadi March’ of Imran Khan which draws its justification from the alleged rigging in the 2013 elections and the need for electoral reforms, and the ‘Revolution March’ drawing strength from the litany of economic, administrative and social reforms needed in the country, as expounded by Dr Qadri.
However, the way they are agitating their demands and their redress through extra-constitutional means is tantamount to ‘political terrorism’ — more so because of the civil disobedience movement announced by Imran Khan — which if adopted as a means to effect change of government would prove to be a recipe for disaster and perpetual political instability in the country which might eventually, God forbid, lead to separating of ways by some federating units.
The movements of Qadri and Imran have made a very positive contribution so far as bringing into focus the need for reforms is concerned. There is also a consensus among all the political forces represented in the Parliament to effect changes in the electoral system and a Parliamentary Committee has been formed to review the entire electoral system. The government has also conceded to Imran’s demand for the constitution of a Judicial Commission to hold a probe into the rigging allegations. It is therefore advisable for Imran Khan to have faith in the Judicial Commission and let it come out with its findings. If it corroborates his allegations then he would be justified in demanding mid-term polls. Otherwise, demanding resignation from the Prime Minister who is a legitimately elected Chief Executive, under the existing constitutional arrangement, as well as the dissolution of the assemblies, is unconstitutional as well as morally wrong. How can somebody be punished without having been found guilty?
We have a constitution which provides for reforms through constitutional amendments and the only way forward is sticking to the constitution. Both Imran and Qadri must grab the opportunity and be part of the initiative to overhaul the electoral and governance system. Reportedly, the PML-N has formed two committees to engage Imran and Qadri to resolve the crisis through dialogue. It is a good initiative which must be positively responded to as the Prime Minister seems genuinely desirous of strengthening democracy and accommodating their demands within the confines of the constitution. Through mutual consultations the mandate of the Committee formed for electoral reforms can also be expanded to suggesting changes in the system of governance based on economic and social justice.
My considered view is that the government elected through first-past-the-pole system, works in favour of the elite and the feudal lords. It is also prone to rigging on massive scale, the reason which has prompted the need for reforms. The retention of the single constituency system with cosmetic and procedural changes in the conduct of elections or only reconstituting the Election Commission is not going to address the real problems. The best and the only way to have a truly representative government in the country is the adoption of the system of proportional representation. Under the proportional representation system people vote for the parties rather than the individual candidates in a single constituency and the parties get representation in the parliament on the basis of the percentage of votes that they poll.
The advantage of this system is that it reflects the real support for the political parties among the masses and also ensures the presence of smaller and regional parties in the parliament making the legislature a truly representative body. The party leaders are spared of the blackmail of the hereditary legislators who keep shifting their loyalties to cash in on their ability to make and break governments and they can nominate really competent and educated people from different walks of national life to represent the party in the Parliament. The system also eliminates the possibility of horse trading, floor-crossing and chances of rigging in the elections. To make the proportional representation system really workable, voting will also have to be made mandatory as is the case in more than 50 countries, mostly European, where different variants of the proportional representation system are in vogue. Even in UK, a serious thought is being given to adopting this system. It is most suitable for countries with multiple cultural entities like Pakistan.
The committee must also consider the possibility of fixing a date for the federal and provincial elections, as is in the USA, so that no sitting government could delay or postpone the elections to suit its political interests, make recommendations for separation of judiciary from the executive as well as setting up of local governments in conformity with article 140 A of the Constitution. To resolve controversy on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other members a provision be inserted in the constitution that the senior most retired Chief Justice of the SC would be appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner by the President with the power to appoint other members from the community of retired judges. The system of electronic voting should also be introduced. In regards to the appointment of NAB Chairman, the President should be empowered to appoint the senior most (retired) judge of the Supreme Court as Chairman of NAB.