The writer is a political and security analyst who retired as an air vice-marshal in the Pakistan Air Force
Insanity, according to Einstein, is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. He surely did better with mathematical formulations and time-space concepts than with German, of which this seems a poor English translation. But he did convey the lingering senselessness in the human spirit to persist with what has repeatedly failed to deliver. ‘Reinforcing a failure’ instead is short, focused and sweet to appeal to a modernist. I clearly refer to the political system of Pakistan, which has been under the spotlight for less than salubrious connotations. Illustrious fathers of the Pakistani democracy have been seized with fighting this scourge of ‘horse-trading’ — a synonym for selling one’s vote for money or favour; and clearly a detestable occupation that brings such a bad name to this honourable occupation of politics. (Pun intended).
The minimum cost of contesting a popular election is about Rs20 crores — that is eight zeroes following the two for dimwits; and 33,333 times the official minimum wage of Rs6,000 (though Rs12,000, too, was announced by an odd government). Politics is a high-stakes game, and only the brave and the insane tread the slippery path. That is why it is advised that two occupations may never be indulged in with one’s own money: politics and business. For business, banks put up their capital, and for politics it must always be someone else’s money; or black, unaccounted money which is then suitably coloured white when washed in the electoral process. A family trio of a father and two sons is known to always buy their way into the Senate, even when not endorsed by a political party. There is practically nothing in this noble occupation that money cannot buy. Some Gulf sheikh is known to have once quipped, “If need be I can buy the entire Pakistani parliament.” I am certain this is only an exaggeration and an invention of someone from the desert with an insanity of another kind.
The proposed 22nd Amendment was aimed at ensuring that all members of the respective provincial assemblies tow the party line. Which really meant that the leader, or the council of elders (I deceive myself) would prescribe to their members who to vote for. For the members then it was either the devil (read the leader) or the deep blue sea (sea of money, of course). Either way their conscience, if it had all existed and not excised on joining politics, had been ransomed to exogenous ownership even as they chose legislators who will hereon, after their entry into parliament, adjudicate on Pakistan’s policies and governance, and give Pakistan its laws. The prospects for credible political process appear more dismal than those of Pakistan’s cricket team for the moment.
The framers of the Constitution had bound the members to vote as per their party preference in two cases: in a vote of confidence/no-confidence for the prime minister or a chief minister, and while voting for the money bill; leaving them the freedom to answer their conscience in other cases with a secret ballot. Such is, however, the concern that to restrain their party members from either selling their vote (more likely) or from answering their conscience (an exaggerated but a worthy subterfuge), the proposed amendment was meant to shackle a member’s choices.
Another useful cliche, ‘garbage-in-garbage out’ is equally instructive. Pakistani politics, for all the 34 years that it has had a chance to exercise its brilliance has delivered precious little. Some blame it on the perpetual shadow of the military even when the military is not in power, which has restrained political brilliance to manifest itself in ways that would have made Pakistan look different. To others it remains the consequence of ‘garbage in- garbage out’. Moving in circles, within a known quantity of professional politicians, the effort has instead been to perpetuate mutual sustenance. It is time to realise that ‘doing the same thing over and over again is unlikely to deliver any different’. The political structures that these parties bring are important, except that there needs to be a major re-composition of the party cadres with qualitative induction in the human resource from outside of the established political base.
To expect such moralistic toning by party leaderships to induct a more capable human resource, specialised in public policy or governance or in avenues that help deliver in both, would be rather misplaced. Familiar only with the traditional, they are either not cognisant of what they lack or they simply do not care. In such a case, only a re-modulation of existing structures can bind the political system of Pakistan to a specialised composition of various governmental and parliamentary structures.
This is what I propose. Increase the number of seats in the National Assembly from the present 342 to 442; an increase of 100. Of the 442, 343 members should be directly elected — an increase of 71 more than the present 272. The remaining 99 members should be nominated through a system of proportional representation and be divided in the ratio of 30-15-54 for women, minorities and technocrats. The qualification criteria for the technocrat seats should be explicitly stated to meet the needs of both academic and professional experience to assist in the formulation of policies and governance. A more studied input by the professionals will not only improve the quality of debate and policy in parliament, it will also enable governments to tap the immense resource available outside of political structures in the private sector that can benefit the country in public policy. We need specialists more than the generalists.
The Senate should continue to be composed of the 104 members as present but must vary the mix to include 48-8-8-4-36 for general-women-Fata-minorities-technocrats respectively. All members to the Senate should be nominated by political parties on the basis of proportional representation and must qualify a given criteria for qualification in each of the four cadres. Necessary amendments to the political structures in Fata will be required to enable party affiliations and consequent nominations.
Where corrupted intent cannot be modified by laws because those will inevitably be circumvented, structural enforcement and process imposition could herald some control over political decadence and moral deviance. In a fledgling democracy where politics has lost its direction, the only way to still work with the same pool is to reinvigorate the base of induction with uncorrupted additions from a wider professional and academic base in the private sector. Public-private compositions in politics, the bureaucracy and administration may well be Pakistan’s saving grace in a tradition of weak delivery by its political set-ups.
When it’s broke, mend it. Pakistan’s political system needs mending.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 7th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ