The greatest care needs to be taken now, of course, that the jirgas andpanchayats are not allowed, legally, to dispense their own form of justice, which is not justice at all
Democracy is in play once again. Just a few days ago our august House was witness to 23 parliamentarians passing the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) bill for the benefit of approximately 200 million Pakistanis. Common chatter, till a few years ago, revolved around government initiatives to ban those jirgas and panchayats altogether. Back then there was still some hope for that so called judicial revolution – must’ve been around the time of the Chaudhry circus in the Musharraf era, when black coats promised everything from backlog to corruption in the judiciary would be taken care of once and for all.
But to understand the ADR, even though it’s more than likely to run into a brick wall in the Senate, we need to understand our own brand of democracy all over again; its players, parties and, most importantly, its own kind of legislation.
To make sense of these matters, DNA talked exclusively to Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, the president of PILDAT (Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency).
Question: PILDAT’s report for last year noted that quality of democracy dropped a good four percentage points. Isn’t it difficult quantifying something like quality of democracy? What benchmarks do you use?
Ahmed Bilal Mehboob: It’s a complicated process, of course. Some scholars just do not quantify at all and prefer qualitative analysis. But a quantitative examination is always far more interesting and more useful, even though a degree of subjectivity does creep in.
We began incorporating quantitative analysis with our ‘State of Democracy Report’ in 2003. In 2009, we introduced a new format, and the report was called ‘Assessment of Quality of Democracy’.
First our framework was adapted from the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), a Swedish institute with the aim ‘to support democratic change through providing comparative knowledge, and assisting democratic reform, and influencing policies and politics’.
We used this framework for about four years. But upon review, we realised that while the international framework did provide some advantages, certain parameters just did not resonate with realities in Pakistan. Then we developed an indigenous framework more relevant to Pakistan. For the last four years, we have been publishing reports based on the new indigenous methodology.
Q: Surely any analysis of ‘legislative development’, etc, must base foremost on the legislature itself. Here, however, we have a serious problem of parliament not being taken seriously. Anytime the PM makes it to the House, for example, is ‘breaking news’. Your comments?
ABM: Yes, legislature is a big problem and it is, indeed, breaking news whenever the prime minister decides to grace parliament. But this problem has its roots in our overall societal as well as political system.
Of course, the Assembly should be connected to the people. It is, after all, a product of the people’s choices. And the underlying thesis is that since the voter gets the politicians into the House, voters matter.
The Pakistani context is different, though. Our average voter is more concerned about personal issues that are not addressed by the routine structures of government; jobs, transfers, police issues, etc, and they need someone with power and connections to help him. That is because he is generally rejected by the system for not being powerful enough himself.
I feel the ’13 elections were the fairest than any we’ve had. And I’m hopeful the next one will be even better. ECP is now focusing on plugging loopholes that were observed last time. It is holding a lot of trainings. So, yes, there is reason for hope
That, therefore, is why our MNAs and MPAs spend most of their productive time out of the House. It’s not that they are not doing their core job at that time. That’s just how our system works.
Q: Speaking of quorum in the House, were you surprised that the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) bill was passed by only 23 people? Also, what are your views regarding this initiative? Shouldn’t the government be trying to overcome the regressive influence of jirgas and panchayats?
ABM: As regards the bill, we (PILDAT) have yet to form an opinion. In principle, though, the ADR model is not objectionable. In Pakistan, in fact, it is need more than most places, especially since our courts system cannot deliver.
The greatest care needs to be taken now, of course, that the jirgas andpanchayats are not allowed, legally, to dispense their own form of justice, which is not justice at all.
Now – and this is very important – it’s not as if this system cannot be improved. It can. But it will not happen overnight. It is a whole chain that needs to be sorted out, the last stage of which is justice delivery. And every stage needs political will to reform.
It begins with restructuring the police. Unfortunately our police are not designed to attend to grievances of common people. It is still an instrument of oppression; a concept that has not changed since colonial times.
To change this pattern, we will ultimately have to induct different types of people into the force, respecting merit above all else. Half the problems will be solved if the police force becomes more citizen-friendly.
Step two involves introduction of latest technological advances into the investigation process. This step shall make it much easier to track criminals and wrap up cases at the police level; keeping half-baked cases from further burdening the courts to begin with. Presently there’s a state of the art forensic lab in Lahore. But sadly the police is not trained to leverage it properly, and a lot more are needed.
Step number three is prosecution. Far too many times good prosecution will drop cases with the police from going to the courts. A good example of this is the Altaf Hussein case in London. They did not move the case to the courts because prosecution did not find enough evidence in the case to proceed.
The last and fourth level is the courts. With proper support from investigation and prosecution processes, the courts’ burden is already lessened. But putting this whole process on track will take a long time. And, more than anything else, it will take a lot of political will.
If our leaders can muster the will, this thing can be taken care of in two to three years.
Q: Your annual report for last year appreciated the local body polls. But considering how the government had to be arm twisted by the Supreme Court into holding them, then limited the power of local governments, is there really much reason to be happy?
ABM: Well, they are better than nothing. The important thing is that people have been elected through a process. During this process they interacted with the masses, went through the whole election exercise, and now there will be a strong feedback mechanism.
Despite limited powers, they will create momentum and generate a lot of pressure. They will have the following of the people. That is why provincial and central governments will not be able to keep them down for too long.
If anything, the political class will have to take them more seriously with time. If allowed to work, the local body system can do immense good.
Q: Sometimes there’s very impressive legislation that is just not followed through in letter in spirit. Sometimes even very important matters have been allowed to fall down the priority list after the media glare in the House. Even the national action plan (NAP) has been badly ignored. Do you agree?
ABM: In our (PILDAT) view, a good 75pc of legislation is its enforcement. That is the major challenge. Making more laws is the easy way out when confronted with a complicated and complex situation. The first reaction among our leaders is to enact new laws, even when there are existing laws. That shows, if anything, how little importance is given to enforcement, unfortunately.
You must realise that the phenomenon is deeper than just legislation. In our political system, individuals run the show, not institutions. Therefore people vote for individuals, not ideologies or parties. Parties actually function under autocratic writ. This also links back with the argument about quorum in the House.
Therefore the debate in the House, or any manner of legislation, will mostly reflect the wishes of the elite, not ordinary rank and file of any party.
Q: Are you optimistic about the state of democracy, despite the four points your institute found it regressing by last year?
ABM: Yes I am optimistic. I have seen things change. ECP appointments are made through a multi partisan process, it is no longer just the discretion of the sitting PM. We are ahead of India in this. The 18th amendment made these things possible.
Also, I feel the ’13 elections were the fairest than any we’ve had. And I’m hopeful the next one will be even better. ECP is now focusing on plugging loopholes that were observed last time. It is holding a lot of trainings. So, yes, there is reason for hope.
I also feel our democracy has never been as good as it is today. We have never had such an independent judiciary. And we have never had such an open and diverse media. That is not to say we have already overcome all our problems. A lot, lot remains to be done. But we are far from the PTV only and controlled elections days.