Ordinances, who cares?

Head of PPP Media Cell

Governance through ordinances is least desirable even in an emerging democracy. Its negative optics is bound to divide the political leadership on the both sides for the wrong reasons. Progressive evolution of the democratic order will suffer invariably. The propensity of seeking short cuts reflects poorly on treasury benches equivalence to berating the Parliament by any stretch of imagination. The constitutional provisions though authorise the government to issue ordinances but within the framework as defined therein. Unfortunately, the ruling party has been relentlessly relying on the ordinances that too without observing the rules of business as clearly laid down in the Constitution. No wonder there is dismal performance of the Parliament during these times around. It is surely not good news for the democracy and for the government in the final analysis. The onus of responsibility for the poor proficiency lies on the shoulders of the ruling party and its leadership. Regretfully, there is no realisation to make the Parliament as the focus of the country’s politics where laws are fine-tuned and passed based on the collective wisdom. The ruling party’s leadership evidently feels no needs of the inputs from the Opposition in order to make legislative process easier and better destined to serve the people better right across. They have resorted to the silver plated solution in the form of promulgation of presidential ordinances at the expense of the functioning of the Parliament.

Pakistan People’s Party government led by Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani may be described as the shining example of the successful functioning of the parliamentary democracy in Pakistan during which landmark constitutional amendments like the 18th Amendment were passed with ‘Political Consensus’. These were the exceptional achievements of eminence of the parliamentary democracy and parliamentary politics that impressively restored the federal, parliamentary and democratic character of the country’s Constitution. The Constitution was arbitrarily defaced by the successive military dictators solely to perpetuate their dictatorial rule.

The long standing demand of the provincial autonomy of the smaller provinces was also addressed with ‘consensus’ strengthening the federation. It remarkably addressed the economic and political grievances of the smaller federating units. The democratic advancements surely established that the political leadership was quite capable of resolving the tricky and complex political conundrums those could not be imagined to be achieved through juggernaut, disengagement and isolation -- the favorite modus operandi of the ruling party. Such course of politics would usher an era of political polarisation that people have been witnessing leaving bad taste in their mouth. This type of politicking may surely not serve the country but the naysayers. The ruling party may realise the indispensability -- though late epiphany --, of reaching out the political opponents because politics of confrontation in democracy is like inflicting disability by axing one’s own foot.

Parliamentary democracy was functioning with full zeal during the PPP-led government because political opponents were given due respect, recognition and respectability. Their views and reservations were taken into account by the ruling party with the spirit of political maturity and accommodation. They were always taken into confidence on the upcoming legislation before these were tabled in the House for the legislation. The leader of the House, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, never missed the session of the Parliament if he was in Pakistan. On the other hand, Prime Minister Imran Khan does not feel comfortable in the House and therefore rarely graces the House with his presence thus impeding than promoting the enabling environment for the parliamentary politics. The presence of the leader of the House, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, made a lot of difference as he was available to respond to the questions of the members of the Parliament pertaining to the governance in the full glare of media.

It also greatly helped to remain in touch with the members of the Parliament of all the parties ensuing in promoting better understanding on the important national issues. The politics of revenge and fight to the bitter end were driven out of the corridors of power considering political opponents as an important and integral part of the democratic dispensation.

The benefits of such mode of politics were remarkable as the legislative process gained the requisite momentum that was always badly needed to tackle complex governance issues with the sense of urgency and responsibility. Parliament record would bear it out quite clearly that the then PPP government tabled 138 bills and more than 90% were tabled with ‘political consensuses. That was the parliamentary democracy functioning at its best. It may be recalled that the PPP did not have the majority in the National Assembly and yet enacted a number of laws and historic amendments by bringing all the political parties on board thus setting the example of worth emulation.

Regretfully, the incumbent ruling party leadership continues to rely on mode of politics that is perceived as an anathema to parliamentary democracy. The PPP model of politics of understanding and accommodation should have been followed because it was instrumental to overcome the grave challenges posing threat to the federation. For example, the NWFP was given the name of KPK thus buried the Pashtoonistan issue for ever. The Concurrent List of the constitution was devolved in favour of the provinces as was originally committed by the then leaders who made this commitment as part of the primary law of the land. The 7th National Finance Award ensured the financial autonomy to the provinces by significantly enhancing their share in the “divisive pool’. The epoch making legislation to mainstream the minorities was yet another milestone of the functioning of the parliamentary democracy during the watch of PPP government.

The incumbent government of (PTI) is seemingly at odd with the parliamentary politics. Its pursuit of political opponents in the name of accountability has not earned good repute for the ruling elite as it does not look like across the board. This has been adjudged as discriminatory not less than but by the apex court in its recent verdict. The track record of the government clearly bears witness to this perception even before the verdict of the Supreme Court. The former chief justice of Pakistan also underscored the importance of rectifying the growing perception of the ‘lopsided accountability’ as the part of political engineering. But to no avail so far. The Parliament has also been seemingly reduced to the secondary position as issuance of ordinances has become normal than exception.

But the leadership gives scant regard to the importance of embarking upon the course correction and is continuing to tread on the same trajectory without remorse. There is no visible letting up as the curse of confrontation may have been swirling around the mindset of the ruling elite in perpetuity. In fact, the ruling party and its leadership evidently do not believe in the indispensability of the Opposition as the other wheel of the democratic vehicle. How long it can run the government by alienating the formidable Opposition? The pushing around and punishing the political opponents surely fall close to the narrative of sham democracy where collective wisdom is trumpeted with contempt.

The Opposition leaders have shown exemplary resilience in the face of the witch hunting. These tactics are now being criticised by the international organisations of repute with the indictment of gross violation of human rights.

How unfortunate that the government has seemingly become symbol of oppression and tyranny instead of catalyst of unity and togetherness. It’s undermining of the democratic conventions and practices with impunity have already shrunk the space for the civil society and for the democratic institutions. The space is being filled by the ‘known unknown’. The media is under the pile of pressure and gasping for air. The voices of dissent are stifled even before these reach to the streets.

Freedom of media is believed as the sine qua non of functioning democracy. It is the fundamental right of the citizens under the Article 19 of the Constitution. But, media is under pressure evidently surpassing the dark periods of ferocious dictatorship in its nature. The reports of threats to media persons, and their detention and kidnappings continue to appear in the local and foreign media bedeviling the image of the country. TV channels are supposed to toe the official line failing which they have to brace the consequences of revenue losses, the lifeline of media.

The recalcitrant journalists have been threatened and sometimes picked up incommunicado. The culprits are hardly brought to justice and the currency of such incidents speaks volumes of the culture of impunity that leads to more violence against media men and media women. The women journalists have recently cried out at the top of their voice as they are being made target through social media by the people who do not like their views and have resorted to petty tactics of trolling them.

The profanity filled vitriol is shameful and the government should not only take action against such elements but also be seen as having taken action. But, official apathy is frustrating if culprits are not taken to task. The authorities may prove their commitment to the freedom of media by taking action against those who have been attacking on women journalists’ integrity, dignity and respectability. Lack or limited freedom of media is like becoming the party to fail the purpose of constitution. It is constitutional obligation not choice.

muhammadshaheedi@yahoo.com