What Musharraf should have done... but didn't

I wrote the letter below on 14 October 1999. It was published in the 19 October 1999 edition of the Daily Dawn. Mr. Musharraf obviously did not read it, or ignored it, in the event that he did. Today 17 years later the advice given remains relevant. In re- publishing the letter my intention is not to invite further intervention but to highlight that the problems of yesterday remain in essence the problems of today. Until we find solutions we do not have any hope of moving forward.

Those who read the letter below will also find uncanny validation of the adage 'The more things change the more they remain the same'.

Nadeem M Qureshi

The Editor

Daily Dawn Karachi

Dear Sir,

The removal of Mr. Sharif's government represents an opportunity that must not be squandered. It is clear that democracy, as practised in Pakistan, has failed to deliver results. Incompetent and corrupt people have been routinely elected to parliament regardless of their party affiliations. And once in power have performed, not surprisingly, egregiously. This has brought us where we are today. A country that stands on the brink of economic collapse with decimated institutions unable to provide its citizens with the very basic of services.

Clearly the system of democracy needs to be revamped so that the best of Pakistan's people, not the worst, run its affairs. General Musharraf and his colleagues are now in the unique position to make this happen. What should they do?

To start with they should not give in to the rising international clamour for a quick restoration of civilian rule. The changes that are needed to put democracy on the right track in Pakistan cannot be effected quickly. Yet the issue of legitimacy must be addressed. Since in a democracy, authority ultimately belongs to the people they should be approached directly in a referendum asking them to authorise an extra constitutional government, headed or sponsored by the military, for a period of two or three years. They should also authorise this government to make all necessary structural and constitutional changes to make democracy viable in the future. These changes would then be ratified by a future parliament.

There can be no doubt in anyone's mind of the outcome of such a referendum. The scenes of jubilation seen on the streets of Pakistan as news of Mr. Sharif's ouster spread are ample testament that the people of Pakistan have had enough of this particular brand of democracy.

Assuming we get so far. A referendum is held, a military led government gets a 3 year mandate to make basic changes and international indignation is muffled if not silenced. What would such a government need to do? There is space here only to talk of the fundamentals.

1. The feudal system must be dismantled in its entirety. Land that was 'gifted by British rule during colonial times to those who gained its favour must revert to the ownership of the federal government. These steps must be accompanied by genuine land reform that frees the people of rural Pakistan from the yoke of oppression that has long deprived them of their basic rights.

The importance of this reform cannot be overstated. Democracy in Pakistan has failed to deliver because there remains today a large part of the population, perhaps a majority, who cannot vote their minds. This is why recurring elections bring the same people to power — people whose central interest is to maintain the status quo.

2. The design of any future democratic setup must ensure that the cabinet consists of unelected professionals. This would mean that the President or Prime Minister would be able to pick the best of Pakistan's people for running the affairs of state. In the present system parliamentarians with little or no administrative experience, and even less education, end up in executive government positions. The disastrous consequences now stare us in the face,

3. The quota system must be dismantled. There is no room in a democracy for discrimination on any basis. All citizens must be equal in terms of their rights. Previous governments have sought to address economic imbalances between rural and urban areas in Sindh by resorting to quotas. But discrimination should never be a tool of economic policy. Other tools must be used such as education and investment in industry and infrastructure. The pain, alienation and destruction that Sindh has suffered would surely have been avoided if more enlightened policies had been pursued.

4. Education. No democratic system can function effectively if its people are illiterate or uneducated. In some sense this issue is an aspect of feudalism. In an effort to maintain their grip on power, feudal landlords even today do not permit schools in areas they control.The interim government must declare primary education as a cornerstone of its policy and ensure that whatever democratic setup takes over from it continues with this policy. A literate population is a guarantee, perhaps the only real guarantee, that a democratic system will work well.

5. The issue of religious intolerance in general and specifically the recent tragic escalation in Shia - Sunni violence must be addressed with extreme urgency. The root of the problem here is ignorance of even the basics of Islam. The "leaders' of both communities need to be educated. And here our rulers can turn to a source that they have approached in the past only for financial assistance.

The Gulf states are home to a number of Islamic scholars whose knowledge of the Quran and sunnah is respected across the Arab world. One of these is Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi at Qatar University. I have heard him frequently on Gulf television channels arguing forcefully-based on his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Quran and Hadith – for unity between Shia and Sunni.

Dr. Qaradawi, and others like him, would be more than delighted to give many of our religious leaders who call for violence against other Muslims a lesson not just in Islam but also in humility.

6. And finally the economy. Here Pakistan must resist the pressure from external agencies such as the IMF, the World Bank, WTO etc to jump onto the bandwagon of privatisation, open markets and globalisation. These policies while well suited for developed industrial nations make absolutely no sense for a developing country like Pakistan, where in fact they would, if implemented, relegate its economy to a perpetual backwater. Economic success stories such as Japan and South Korea were made possible by strong government participation and protected markets. Even today US companies complain of protectionism in both Japan and Korea.

So Pakistan stands today on the threshold of opportunity. If General Musharraf and his colleagues act with wisdom and courage they can set a course that will let Pakistan fulfil the potential that it seemed to promise when it was created half a century ago. If they fail there will be no second chances.

Nadeem M Qureshi

14 October 1999

Proportional representation is the way forward

Pakistan has suffered, since its inception, from a lack of political stability.  Democracy has not taken root.  Military and civilian governments have played a game of musical chairs with the nation's destiny.  The pattern was painfully familiar.  A civilian government is installed after the euphoria of elections.  Ineptitude and corruption pave the way for a military intervention.  A military government assumes power promising to clean house and restore democracy.  Neither promise is kept.  Growing pressure - internal and external - forces the military to hold elections.  The game begins again. 

What is wrong?  Is Pakistan congenitally indisposed to democracy?  I think not.  Our problem has to do with the sort of democratic system we have rather than democracy itself.  What is wrong with our existing system?  And, what should replace it?    It is not sufficient to replicate an existing political system that has developed over decades or centuries in another country and transpose it to our context.  What I will seek to do is to propose an integrated political system that will be responsive to Pakistan's very specific needs.  It is important, in what follows, to keep an open mind - a clean slate, if you will.

The existing system

Start with the fundamentals.  Ideally, in a democracy, the assemblies make the laws, the courts interpret and implement them, and the executive manages the country.  It clearly makes sense to keep all three players as independent of each other as possible.  In Pakistan things do not work this way.

People who are elected to our assemblies know little, and care less about law making.  They seek election because they perceive that becoming an MNA or an MPA entitles them to power (a minister-ship ideally), protocol (VVIP lounges), and money (handouts to spend on their constituencies).  Since they are not interested in legislation, little takes place in the assemblies.  Instead they become talk shops where scheming and idle chatter replace the serious legislative business of the nation.

Matters are made worse because the executive - the prime minister and his cabinet - is drawn from these assemblies.  So one critical barrier - that separating the executive from the legislature - is breached, as it were, by design.  The prime minister, in our system, acquires almost unchecked power.  He becomes head of the executive and legislature at the same time.  The system then requires him to draw his cabinet - the nation's management team - from elected members of the legislature.

Assume, for a moment, that we get the right person as prime minister - sensible, practical, mature, wise, intelligent, humane, open minded, humble, and with the vision and management skills needed to lead a complex country like ours.  Is it likely that he will be able to find people in the assemblies with the right managerial skills needed to run the government?  These are people who will - as ministers - sit atop large, unwieldy bureaucracies critical to the functioning of the state.  Does it make sense to put, for example, a scion of a large land owner, or a 'gadi nasheen' with little or no (relevant) work experience in a position that requires a very demanding set of skills? 

Now replicate this already dysfunctional model in all the four provinces.  So you have four provincial legislatures, four chief ministers, and four cabinets along with their concomitant regalia.  Are these wasteful, ossified provincial structures of any benefit to anyone other than the people who occupy them? 

The plurality-majority system

There is another problem with the way democracy works in Pakistan.  The system of elections we have in Pakistan is what, in the jargon of political science, is called a 'plurality-majority system'.  It is also commonly known as the 'single member district plurality' (SMDP) system or the 'first past the post' (FPTP) system.  In essence it is a winner take all system.  So if two people are on a ballot then the one who gets a simple majority is declared the winner.  If three or more people are contesting then the one who gets the most votes (a plurality) wins.

In Pakistan SMDP has led to 'adversarial' politics.  At the local level this means the winning MNA has no interest or motivation to work with the loser or losers for the betterment of the his constituency.  This is because the 'losers' though they may have collectively garnered more votes than the winner have no further say in the process.  The 'spoils' are for the victor to take and distribute as he chooses.  The system, as it were, creates needless rivalry and confrontation, when in fact, what is needed is cooperation and consolation.

At the parliamentary level, the dominant party knows that it does not need the support of other parties at the grassroots level. This introduces a certain intemperance, if not outright arrogance, in its conduct. If it does not have an outright majority, 'lotas' are sought out.  If it does have a clear majority, it acts dictatorially, knowing that, at least until the next election, it has no one to answer to.  The conduct of our two dominant parties, whenever they have been in power in the past, suffices as evidence.

There is something about this system that seems to go against the essence of democracy; in a tight two person race, for example, the person who gets a shade over half the vote wins.  So about half the people in the district get the representation they want.  The other half are, in effect, disenfranchised.  Is this a democratically acceptable result?  Whatever the answer, it is safe to say that a more 'democratic', and in Pakistan's specific context, a more appropriate electoral system can be designed.

The context

Electoral systems must be designed to suit the context in which they are applied.  We in Pakistan replicated the SMDP system from the British.  Little, if any, thought was given to whether such a system would work for us.  The consequences are evident and painful.  Almost seventy years have passed since independence and Pakistan is a nation at war, so to speak, with itself.

So what is our 'context'?  We are not a homogeneous people. This is a nation with a multiplicity of 'cleavages'. There exist deep schisms along, provincial, ethnic, linguistic and religious and tribal lines. There are large and small provinces.  Some of them are rich in minerals, others in agriculture.  Should all of this suggest that we are somehow doomed as a nation?  On the contrary I believe that our 'multiplicity of cleavages' if harnessed can become an enviable source of stability and strength.

Yet there is no denying that this fractured tectonic geometry, as  it were,raises many contentious issues.  These include for example, the distribution of water between upstream and downstream provinces - the proposed Kalabagh dam is a case in point.  The dispute over allocation of revenues from natural resources - specifically gas from Baluchistan - has developed from a slow simmer to a dangerous conflagration.  The people of Karachi have long complained that tax revenues collected in the city are not fairly allocated.  The list goes on.

Let's understand that no one is 'wrong'.  All people have a right to their views and a right to protect what they view as their vital interests.  The challenge for Pakistan is to design a democratic system that is accommodative and conciliatory, a system that engenders harmony not division.

The solution

A suitable solution has existed for a long time.  It is Proportional Representation or PR. The basic principles underlying proportional representation elections are that all voters deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in parliament in proportion to their strength in the electorate. In other words, everyone should have the right to fair representation.

In order to achieve this fair representation, all PR systems have certain basic characteristics -- characteristics that set them apart from the SMDP system that we have now. First, they all use multi-member districts. Instead of electing one person in each district, as we do now in Pakistan, several people are elected. These multi-member districts may be relatively small, with only two or three members, or they may be larger, with ten or more members.

Currently one MNA (Member of National Assembly) is elected from a single constituency. In the PR system we could have, for example three members who are elected for the National Assembly (NA) from each constituency. In this system any party can put up more than one candidate in constituency. So party A could give tickets to 3 people, Party B to 4 and Party C to 2. Hence a total of 9 people would be competing for 3 seats in the NA.

The second characteristic of all PR systems is that they divide up the seats in these multi-member districts according to the proportion of votes received by the various parties or groups running candidates. And votes are counted for the parties not candidates - that is that in the case of party A for example all the votes received by its 3 candidates will be added up and attributed to Party A. And so on with the other parties.

Let's say that Party A gets 10% of the vote, Party B 50% and Party C 40%. According to the PR system Party B will get two seats and Party C one seat. Party A will not get any seats. Notice that 90% of voters are getting representation through 3 elected candidates. In the current SMDP system only 50% of voters would have gotten representation through 1 elected candidate.

Issues can arise because if geographic constituencies are left unchanged then the number of members of the NA will be tripled and this is clearly too large. So constituency sizes will need to be adjusted to keep the total size of the NA at a manageable number.

Imagine the soothing effect such a system (or an appropriate variation of it) would have on Pakistani politics.  There would be no disenfranchisement of voters at the district level.  Opposing politicians would have to learn to work with each other in their districts and, as a consequence, in the assemblies.  Cooperation would replace confrontation.  Accountability would replace profligacy.

The structure

What I have talked about so far - the choice of an electoral system - is, to borrow a term from economics, an issue of micro politics.  The macro political issue, to extend the economics analogy, is just as, if not more, important.  By macro political, I mean issues relating to the structure and remit of representative agents such as the parliament, senate, and the executive.

I alluded earlier to the breaching of the barrier between executive and parliament.  This is a critical defect in our system.  Let's look at what would happen if we separated the executive and the parliament.  In this case parliament would be elected separately from the executive i.e the prime minister or the president.  This is what happens, for example, in the U.S. system.  In this case the directly elected prime minister or president, free from the constraint of choosing his cabinet from elected members of parliament, is able to select the most suitable and professionally competent people for his team.

The effect on parliament would be even more salutary:  Politicians would realize that being elected to parliament is not a ticket to spoils and power.  Instead it calls for them to think and work hard on the serious business of legislation, and of budgetary and executive oversight.  Once it is realized that becoming an MNA or an MPA is not a pot of honey, only those people who are interested and qualified will seek this office.  What a change that would be!

Epilogue

I am not a political scientist and it is well beyond the scope of this modest paper to suggest an alternative democratic structure for Pakistan.  My purpose is to open a dialogue, or at least create an awareness, that we are not necessarily bound to the 'democracy' that we now have.  What I do know for sure is that there does exist a democratic structure that would meet our aspirations.  Our problem is akin to that of a sculptor; what he imagines already exists in the block of stone.  He just has to use his intelligence and skill to expose it to the light of day.

Nadeem M Qureshi

A new democratic system for Pakistan

It is clear to Mustaqbil Pakistan that the current system of government has failed to deliver benefits to the people of Pakistan. In this light we are sketching here a broad and preliminary outline for a completely revised system both in terms of its structure and enabling legislative and constitutional framework.

These are the principal features of our proposed new democratic system which we will refer to henceforth for brevity as the ‘MP System”

Federal Structures

1. The chief executive of the country will be a directly elected president who will serve a term of 5 years. There will be no prime minister.
2. This will be a unicameral system. There will only be one assembly called the Aiwan an Nass (ایوان الناس)
3. Constituencies for the Aiwan an Nass (AN)  will be determined by population. There will be one Member of the AN per 500,000 people. This translates in current terms to 360 members in the AN
4. Elections for the AN will be based on a proportional system of representation.
5. The federal cabinet will be appointed directly by the President and will consist of professionals who in the opinion of the President have the merit, competence and necessary skills to oversee the ministries to which they are appointed.
6. Each proposed member of the cabinet will be vetted by the Aiwan an Nass

Local Structures

1. Existing provinces will be abolished and replaced by 30 ‘Khitas’. Each ‘Khita’ (خطہ)will be roughly along the lines of the existing ‘Divisions’.
2. Each Khita will have a governing council based in the capital city of the Khita. Each council will consist of 30 directly elected members. The constituency for these elections will be the whole Khita.
3. Elections will be by proportional representation.
4. Each Khita Council (KC) will elect a Council Chairman who will be the Chief Executive of the Khita. The Khita Chief Executive (KCE) will appoint a non elected cabinet of ministers who will manage the Khita.
5. Khita ministers will be vetted by the full council which will approve them with a simple majority vote.
6. The basic unit of administration will be the Union Council. Elements of the old ‘local bodies’ system will be retained. The main difference will be that elections will now be held on the basis of proportional representation.

Benefits of the MP System

What we have outlined above is clearly a very basic picture of the system MP envisions. Many details need to be worked out. What we would like to do here is to review some of the benefits of the system that we intend to implement.

Benefits of MP’s proposed federal system

1. Since the president will be directly elected by the people he will truly be someone who enjoys a majority of public support. This will give him the respect and authority to run the country in accordance with his mandate.
2. Direct election by the people will avoid a situation in which corrupt, insincere people of limited or no capability make their way to the presidency and embarrass and disappoint the whole country.
3. The unicameral system - only one house of peoples representatives - the Aiwan an nass will result in the following benefits:
1. Streamline the passage of legislation since only one house will need to review and pass it
2. Result in significant savings by eliminating the costs of supporting a second house, its representatives, their salaries and their perks.
4. Eliminating the office of prime minister will lead to efficiency and clarity in decision making.  In addition savings will result from closing offices, residences and other facilities associated with the prime minister.
5. A directly appointed cabinet of professionals will have the following benefits:
1. The most competent and qualified people in their respective fields will be appointed as ministers. This will mean that ministries are run in a professional and efficient manner.
2. Since members of the Aiwan an Nass will no longer be eligible to be ministers the motive to gain position and power will be removed. Hence only those people who are genuinely interested in legislative matters will seek election to the AN.
6. Elections on the basis of a proportional system of representation will result in the following benefits:
1. The rule of ‘majority takes all’ will not apply. This is because it is in the nature of the proportional system of representation that people who would otherwise be in a minority also get to participate in the legislative process
2. Proportional representation by its nature requires a higher level of cooperation between parties. This is will be especially useful for Pakistan where political parties become polarized and adversarial resulting in paralysis and ultimately in collapse of the democratic process.

Benefits of MP’s  proposed local system:

Before mentioning the benefits of the proposed local system it is important to appreciate exactly what is being proposed in the elimination of existing provinces and creation instead of 30 Khitas.

The existing provinces represent a division based on historical, cultural and linguistic factors. Whereas the MP’s proposed division into 30 Khitas is based purely on administrative factors.

The driving idea behind MP’s proposed local system is to push power and responsibility as much as possible down to a local level.

1. The new khitas will meet the popular demand in many regions for their own ‘provinces’. These demands are particularly vociferous in for example Hazara, Bahawalpur, and more generally in Southern Punjab.
2. Elimination of divisions along historic and linguistic lines (i.e elimination of provinces) will eliminate simmering tensions between their respective peoples. This will in turn create a heightened sense of national unity.
3. The khitas will, by pushing decision making closer to the people, create a feeling of ownership and better control over their own destiny.
4. Significant cost savings will be realized by eliminating provincial ministers and governors and their staffs, perks and facilities.
5. The UC system has already proven its success and popularity amongst the masses. MP will retain it with some modifications

Concomitants

It is clear that the sort of fundamental change proposed in the MP System must be accompanied by changes in the legislative framework. The existing constitution speaks of two houses, provinces, and a prime minister. All of these elements will cease to exist under the MP system. Hence it will be necessary to modify the constitution as necessary to provide the underlying legislative structure which which will enable the new system.

Implementation

Designing MP’s system and the enabling legislative structure is only one aspect of the task at hand. Equally critical, and more difficult, will be developing a mechanism to enact the new system. Clearly these changes must be made in a legal and constitutional manner.

This is a possible hypothetical scenario which could be envisioned:

A future government in which MP may have a role would move a resolution to change the present constitutional system and replace it with the proposed MP system. The sitting legislature would enact the new system and its enabling constitution and other legislative structures. The sitting assemblies would then oversee new elections for all the proposed MP system assemblies. Once the elections are completed a commencement date would be set for the new system.  On the commencement date the existing assemblies will stand dissolved and the new system will take over responsibility for the country.

Concluding remarks

It should be clear that this document is a design brief or roadmap of the direction in which Pakistan has to move. The detailed design will clearly require much thought and effort. But the importance of this design brief cannot be understated. A vision for the future has been articulated and the compass set. The road is long but now we know where we have to go.

Mustaqbil Pakistan promises to lead the way in this journey towards prosperity and success. Inshallah.