A stable state rests on the three legs of the legislature, executive and judiciary. The balance of power between these three is derived from the constitution and political tradition. The political culture derives its legality from the constitution while the traditions provide the moral fabric dictating the behaviour of the stakeholders. In Pakistan, unfortunately, this political culture has not developed because of the repeated usurpation of power by the military establishment. The PPP administration can be rightfully blamed for their lack of governance and delivery of social services but they have, so far, successfully sustained the pressures to maintain continuity of democracy.
As we develop our political culture we must remember that in an Islamic Republic, the Quran provides the constitution and the life of the Prophet (PBUH) is a living tradition and manifestation of this constitution. We can also learn from western democracies, which have nurtured these political traditions in the last three centuries. For instance, in England there is no written constitution but a deep sense of adhering to the traditions. It was the pressure of these customs that forced Vice President Al Gore, during the 2000 presidential elections, to abandon his constitutional right to seek re-counting of the votes in the state of Florida. He could have done that by submitting a petition to the US Supreme Court. In hindsight he would have been elected president if he had chosen that path but by doing so he would have weakened not only the legitimacy of his own presidency but also that of President Bush if the vote turned out not to be in his favour.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the right forum to define the constitutional articles in letter and spirit. But while it exercises this right it should consider the impact of its decisions on the development of democratic traditions. For instance, the Supreme Court’s adoption of the ‘doctrine of necessity’ has legitimised the unlawful rule of military dictators. Similarly, taking oath under a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) has raised questions about the impartiality of the judges. Seeking written guarantee to ensure the continuity of service of government officials is another example of a tradition that could damage the balance of powers between the constitutional pillars.
In the recent political crisis, some prominent lawyers have rightfully come forward to present the case of the elected government in contempt charges while another group of lawyers have criticised this action. Ironically, some of these criticising lawyers, on the other hand, have considered it their moral obligation to defend the actions of a US citizen responsible for a mysterious memo sent to Admiral Mike Mullen. These contradictory actions from prominent members of the legal fraternity strike at the heart of developing a political culture based on principles and ethics.
The media plays a critical role in developing a tradition of politics by allowing the politicians of all stripes to debate their respective ideologies and educate people to make an informed choice. Unfortunately, one of the compulsions of the commercial media is to attract larger audiences, and hence more advertising dollars, by dramatising important political debates and turning them into personality feuds. It is the similar compulsion of being the first to break a news story that pressurises editors to make public announcements without carefully collecting and analysing the facts. A cordial meeting between high stake players presented wrongly can create disagreements and create wrong perceptions without any chances of repair. The media has to come up with a code of conduct that helps in building an environment of trust, fairness and mutual respect among political stakeholders.
Politicians have the highest and direct responsibility in building a political culture that is a guiding light for the future generations. In their personal conduct, they have to set the highest standards of adherence to the law, constitution and social values. If their car is towed for wrong parking then instead of cursing the policemen they should apologise and pay the necessary penalties. In their debates on policy matters, they have to remember that it is not a personality clash but two sides of a coin. They have to remember that their constituents understand that they have to balance the competing interests of their constituency, political party and national interest. It is not expected from them that they will always be right but that they will try their best to fully understand the issue and come up with the best solution. Personal attacks and name-calling produces a bad taste and hinders the chances of a compromise that is usually the outcome in politics.
As voters, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the politicians and assume that they have honourable intentions in presenting their policy position. If we are sure of the mal-intention of a politician, then we should not vote for that person or party in the elections as by electing them we become part of the conspiracy.
We are a four-year-old infant democracy so it is not unusual for us to make childish mistakes. But as a nation we should try to nurture this child to grow and become an adult rather than kill it at infancy.
Your Comments