No Constitutional inherent curse in scheme of Pakistan

By Samuel Baid

The Opposition's motion of no-confidence against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan ended in chaos on April 3 when the National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri saved the Prime Minister by not allowing the scheduled debate on the motion and calling it a contradiction of Article 5 of the Constitution which says loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen. He prorogued the House and on top of it, President Arif Ali dissolved the National Assembly the same day on the advice of the Prime Minister. It was like a losing football team running away with goal post.

 

It was a clear case of subversion of Constitution by denying the Opposition its Constitutional right to move and debate no-confidence motion against the ruling party. The Supreme Court is looking into the case. It is to be seen if the court treats it as a case of subversion of the Constitution.

The framers of the 1973 Constitution wanted to make sure that nobody in future plays around with the constitution. That is why Article 6 was inserted. It called abrogation or subversion of the Constitution high treason.

Punishment for treason is death but no punishment was there for Gen Zia ul Haq and then Gen Pervez Musharraf who subverted it. The civilians had no courage to try them. Pakistan suffers instability in all its institutions because civilians have no control over military.

The no-confidence motion in fact was this anomaly. The Army forced Imran Khan on the nation despite his boyish arrogance and immaturity. It was not only at the cost of seasoned politicians but at the cost of the country itself. Non-constitutionalism has been the inherent curse rooted in the vagueness of the idea of Pakistan which its creator Mohammad Ali Jinnah preached without making it definitely clear if it would be a secular democracy, Islamic State or military dictatorship.

It has turned out to be a hotchpotch of all, bewildering a democratically elected Prime Minister. Thus, between October 1951 when the country's first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead and October 1958 when Gen Ayub Khan imposed military rule on the country, six Prime Ministers were dismissed or changed.

After the breakup of Pakistan in 1971, West Pakistan was called "New" Pakistan. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was made Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA). In August 1973, he became the Prime Minister and in July 1977 he was deposed by his Army Chief Gen Ziaul Haq and hanged in 1979.

During his Pakistan campaign between March 1940 and 1947, Jinnah painted a confused modern art picture of his idea of this so-called homeland of the Muslims of the sub-continent. Seen from different angles this picture creates conflicting impressions of Islamic and secular democracy. In this picture there is not even a slight hint of Pakistan as a military dictatorship. But Jinnah's connivance at his military's genocidal raid on Kashmir in October 1947 and the resultant first India-Pakistan war gave the military a belief that it was not only the defender of the country's borders but also its ideological borders-as Kashmir had been considered as a test for this ideology.

The Army made itself most powerful and above-the-civilian-laws institution. Civilian institutions were treated as its handmaids. In 1971, the Army's claim that it was the defender of Pakistan's geographical borders was exposed when East Pakistan broke away. But that did not lessen the Army's awe in the country. The problem with Prime Ministers in Pakistan is that they get elected by the votes of the people but once in power they have to do their best to keep the generals happy.

They also have to take care that they do not rub Islamists on the wrong side. Thus, a Prime Minister cannot think of independent foreign and trade policy no matter how beneficial it is for the common Pakistani. Thus, the common man is alienated. He easily joins a movement against the Prime Minister. Therefore, a Prime Minister on an average can keep his power only for two to three years no matter how dear he is to the Army.

Imran Khan had taken the Army's patronage for granted. Twenty five (25) years ago, he launched Tehreek-i-Insaf to crusade against corruption in the country. But he naively ignored that his supporters, the Army, is itself very corrupt. Perhaps, the Army wanted him to come to power in 2013 election. He addressed massive election public meetings in Karachi, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhawa. Newspapers raised questions about the source of money for these meetings. He called these meetings Tsunami. He lost those elections. He blamed massive rigging for the defeat and organised a dharna in Islamabad from August 14 to December 16, 2014. The Army stood by him.

In the July 2018 elections, the Army brazenly rigged the elections for him. The rigging was so daring that the leaders of main three political parties the Muslim League (Nawaz), the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Jamiat-Ul-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) decided to boycott the swearing-in-ceremony in Parliament.

But after that came Imran Khan's and Army Chief Gen Javed Bajwa's tussle over the transfer of ISI Chief. The Opposition became bold. There came reports that Gen Bajwa made contacts with PPP leader Bilawal Bhutto and Muslim League (Nawaz) President Shahbaz Sharif. Rumours were set also set afloat that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is returning home and his life disqualification from politics would be lifted.

The Opposition, which was afraid to boycott the swearing in ceremony after the July 2018 elections to protest rigging by the Army for Imran Khan's PTI became very bold for complaining for its no-confidence motion against Imran Khan. The general suspicion was that the Army connived at this motion. But Imran could not say so knowing it would backfire on him. He managed to concoct a fishy letter to say that the US was behind this motion.

There is an impression that the Army is no more with Imran. But what is the choice after destroying two main political parties, the PPP and Nawaz Muslim League. Therefore, one has to keep his fingers crossed about what the Supreme Court has to say knowing its past help to the Army.

Source: IANS