When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed (as the first democratically elected leader of Pakistani) gave his first presidential address to the nation, on December 20th , 1971, he used the word “accountability” which indicated clearly that the PPP believes in transparent accountability and in holding its members answerable and accountable before the law and before the people. He reiterated his believe accordingly on accountability but under the Rule of Law and by the command of the people. Accountability is a democratic process and is not the pretext for vendetta by a ruling mafia as was observed in the past.
Mr. Nawaz Sharif in his second tenure of office 1997-99 as Prime Minister of Pakistan in the name of institutionalised accountability established ‘Ehtsaab Commission’, and engaged his political opponents in witch hunts including the main target – Mr. Asif Ali Zardari.
The PPP belief on transparent accountability with an even hand without discrimination and under the Rule of Law answerable to the people always stood as an important part of PPP policy. That’s why the PPP leadership always faced the tests and trials regularly, attending the court proceedings – unlike certain others. Unless the rulers don’t make them accountable and behave under the Rule of Law the democracy would not provide positive results and would remain deficit in quality. The ‘demos’ would not trust them and ultimately the rulers would come to grief. In that case, such ruler’s last resort could be survival at any cost. They could use force, money or all unfair means to escape from anger of the people. They can steal the mandate as has been observed in the past. Such state of affairs is very dangerous and may convert democracy into tyranny.
The parliamentary committee is miserably failing to lay down basis on TOR for legislation on Panama Accountability. The government and the opposition are both missing parameters as their vested interests have taken top priority. Another factor missing is the absence of important political parties like the MQM – who’ve became torpid and indifferent to the issue. Also the main player Mian Nawaz Sharif, the P.M., seems to display no desire to go by the books. The tug of war is giving an overall impression to be between bad laws (resulting in special privileges to a few) and good laws (that don’t discriminate).
No system of government – whether it be kingship, oligarchy, absolutist or democracy – can succeed without a body of good laws. Every system needs laws to stand upon its two feet, laws that define limits of social and individual behaviors, and licit and illicit actions of the people of a nation. British statesman William Pitt the elder had once said: “Where law ends, tyranny begins.” And it is probably impossible for any democratic institution to exist in the presence of tyranny.
Legislation is a process going through which, legislators had to keep very careful and alert at every step of the way. Even a minor discrepancy in the text of a law can negate each one of its positive effects. It is imperative to keep one’s own social and cultural traditions, internationally acceptable behaviors, public disposition and welfare, under consideration. Negligence towards any one of these can turn a good law into a bad law, and as distinguished British political philosopher Edmund Burke has said: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
18th President of the United States and renowned military leader, General Ulysses S. Grant once said: “I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws as effective as their stringent execution.” Whether the repeal comes off peacefully or with agitation is another matter.
A single law, in its isolated state, can prove to be effective to an extent, but its true pros and cons are revealed only when, combined with other laws, it works as member of a team. Burke says, “Laws, like houses, lean on one another.” The collection of these laws, learning on one another, is called code.
In jurisprudence, a code is a systematic compilation of law in written or unwritten form issued by rulers in formal times, and promulgated by legislative authority after the rise of representative governments. A look on the earliest codes reveals that the customs that took root in a society as necessary, or as a demonstration of power (or any other aspect of human nature), with the passage of time, became so powerful and so indispensable for the people that the rulers made them laws. If we examine today’s code, we will find out that a major portion of their articles and tenets, are devised keeping today’s need (and needs like these have been with us since the beginning o history) in consideration. The work of many minds, the Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise.
The NAB ordinance 1999 carries two exemptions to whip i.e. the Army and the Judiciary. But very recently both the institutions in all practical terms voluntarily ended their exemptions. The army chief sacked high military official on the charges of corruption. And the pro-activism by the apex court and categorical statement by new Chief Judge of LHC Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for the proper dispensation of justice and to keep an eye on the conduct and decision making of individual judges brought certain changes as a strong message. His message is strong – that he will not allow the powerful to snatch the rights of the marginalised.
Now the ball is in the court of political parties, parliament, and the people to correct their rank and file and wash away the dirt. The political leadership needs to jettison rotten, corrupt and criminals from their parties to win the trust of the people. The parliament must create good laws with equality and needs lot of legal reforms. The people i.e., the ‘demos’ must mount their influence and pressure for good laws and elect good players to deliver.
