18th Amendment: Why it should be done away with!

The 18th amendment was passed on April 19, 2010 by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led government after two years of deliberations among all political parties.

It marked removal of article ‘58’ clause 2(b) of the constitution that empowered the president of Pakistan to dissolve the National Assembly unilaterally, something that was enacted by the Zia regime in 1985 in a bid to take stronger hold of the government and subject the parliament to the supremacy of the presidency.

Similarly the 18th amendment introduced 102 additional articles that aims to effect devolution of power from federation to the federating units, revision of legislative list, and restructuring of National finance commission award, ensuring more autonomy to the provinces to deal with their own affairs, curbing the degree of dependence on the central government.

The Impact Of The Amendment

I) President made as a nominal figurehead:

The said amendment successfully scrapped article 58(2)(b) and subjected it to the consent and will of the parliament. As the same had been repeatedly misused by the military dictators and civilian presidents to undermine the free will of the parliament in deciding matters that fall within their competence. Such as President Zia used it against Muhammad Khan Junejo and sent him home, while his government was working smoothly.

Later President Ghulam Ishaq khan dismissed the governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 1990 and 1993 respectively.

President Farooq Laghari also invoked the same power against Ms. Bhutto government in 1996. In all of these instances, the reasons for dismissal were of similar nature, such as incompetence and corruption charges, that still remain unproved and surprisingly these same leaders were elected again to the top public office, meaning that the people did not accord their trust and belief in the accuracy of what the president might have believed sufficient to sack these leaders.

The reduction in the executive functions of the president has so far turned the president into a nominal figurehead.

Better Financial Shares from The Divisible Pool

The others matters that collaborated with the said constitutional amendment include restructuring of NFC Award, which has set around 57% fiscal share for the provinces, as the incorporation of article 160(3A) provides that the share given to the provinces each year should not be less than the previous one, allowing the federating units to have a fair chance to seek increase in their revenues and spend it upon their discretion. To add to the effectiveness of these developments Council of Common Interest (CCI) and National Economic Committee (NEC) were re-addressed with a considerable increase in their functions.

Concurrent list, laws and fundamental rights

Through this amendment, there was a laudable disposition of fundamental rights, such as education was made free for a child from age 5 to 16 under article 25A and a number of subjects were devolved to the provinces including education, food, healthcare, law enforcement, service taxes/excise duties, agriculture, land revenues etc. Similarly steps were also taken towards transparency through insertion of articles like 190A that allows right of access to information for the public. Political theorists and commentators believe that such inscriptions have notably added to the strengthening of the democracy in Pakistan and have excelled a thought for better discharge of public duties in an integrated framework of public-friendly laws because rights like these had been persistently denied by previous regimes as they had wanted to keep public in ignorance of the governmental affairs to debar their ability to question and form critical opinion of the government.

Enhancement of Institutional capacity, effectiveness and independence

The judiciary was made independent by curtailing the power of the chief justice of Pakistan to appoint senior judges, that now have to be decided by supreme judicial council with chief justice as the member along with other senior judges and elected members of the bar, to recommend and shortlist potential judges to the president of Pakistan for appointment. It allows for fair, impartial and democratic process for selection of judges and reduces one men’s role in such crucial appointments that could otherwise compromise merit and may be subject to favoritism and abuse.

In addition to this, the selection of chief election commissioner was made subject to the approval of opposition and the government in what is now called as a joint-democratic exercise and the term of office of the CEC was enhanced from 3 to 4 years, ensuring safe of the tenure.

The election commission was also entrusted with the responsibility of conducting local-bodies elections. Likewise, the province of NWFP was renamed as Khyber-Pakhtun-khwa thereby winning hearts of majority who had been feeling deprived of recognition for their identity. It helped enormously in promoting better picture of the federation that it cares for the concerns of its federating units.

Criticism of the 18th amendment

The critics believe that the 18th amendment has excessively diverted financial resources to the provinces leaving aside minimal revenues for the federal government who has defense expenditure and debt servicing to also look for, thereby impairing its capacity to run smoothly.

Others believe that the number of subjects and the extent of powers equipped to the provinces don’t coincide with their capacity and are frequently prone to abuses and ineffectiveness.

Such as the provincial budgets demonstrate allocation of hefty sums in developments but if the same are assessed intelligibly one would not find a crippling infrastructure, torn health care, poor water and sanitation facilities, non-standard education and increasing poverty levels that defy and unmatched with the expenditure amounts, meaning that most of the times such project become a hot ground for kickbacks with no checks and balances in place.

However, these arguments strongly supported when it is seen that the provinces seems to have done nothing credit-worthy by virtue of the functions entitled under the 18th amendment.

Such as the political parties ruling in the provinces kept local-bodies elections at bay with only a bare possibility that only came on the constant insistence of the supreme court of Pakistan. However the respective provincial governments then legislated to retain majority powers with them, aiming to not completely allow for the devolution of power to the grass-root level as promises the said amendment and something direly opposed to what the political parties project in the media. With this blame tied to them, the same could be seen speaking starkly in support of the devolution and against any plans to tinker with the 18th amendment.

Activating plans amidst mistrust, lack of confidence and popular uproar

In the backdrop of this scenario, the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government now believes that it has become difficult to carry out federal affairs with the existent effects of the 18th amendment that they think have weakened the federation.

However the opposition, on the contrary believes that it untouchable, unchangeable, and an impossibility to tinker with, and any attempt to review it would seriously undermine the democracy and disrupt the wave of already questioned confidence in the government.

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) take the lead because it boasts for achieving this milestone in the chequered history of Pakistan where different notions such as religion, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, socialism, and other alike phenomenon play important part deciding who comes to the parliament and reaching majority consensus is an arduous political exercise.

Challenges

The debate about the 18th amendment is not new but has intensified over the past few years. It is an old debate about centralization and decentralization of power as Pakistan moves into new phase of political realities and perturbing ailment to her economy that has exposed inherent flaws and incompetence at all levels that requires vast resources and collective dialogue to fill in the gap. And head on in the face of challenges that are aggravating on day-to-day basis, coupled with the dampening national response followed by disunity.

In such times of crisis, that has already struck nation in terms of health security related to corona virus having stirred food insecurity due to lock-downs and close-ups, it seems highly impossible that the current government would be able to evolve consensus among the two third majority in the parliament, if it decides to go ahead with the rolling back, repealing or even amending some parts of the 18th amendment.

Error and the guilt

Though debate has come around in a wrong time. And is being fuelled by political motives to stay in power at all costs. BUT does it offer any good? Sadly, the protagonists and antagonists of two political systems.

Presidential and Parliamentary can be seen and read on various forms of media lambasting each other for supporting either of the form. Both of them have mistakenly confused the debate of two political systems in one that of a democracy.

What they struggle to understand is that the both are systems are successful models of governance around the world and functions equally democratically, with the mandate entrusted by the public in various forms, USA, France, China, Russia, Turkey run under presidential system with different political analogies, whereas UK, Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, Italy and few others adopt to parliamentary system of government where president is the ceremonial figurehead or there is monarch who represents the state as its head but real executive functions are executed by the cabinet.

However, the both systems may have their own merits and demerits; that involves but is not limited to safety of tenure, time-frame of decision-making, immunity, and direct election or indirect through elective pool. Something that works for one might not equally work for another therefore the stakeholders will not to sit together and decide before opting any of the system. And this would not be about infringing democratic norms at all.

It is therefore insane to argue that a country could only run under a one system. Because there can be as much democracy as can be in any other form albeit, with different mechanism.

This is something advocated to the contrary grounds by our mainstream political parties that try to Centre the debate on the mistaken grounds just to feign dissent and political hatred as a shield to safeguard their power, while the people in whose name these things are supposed remain unaffected, as they struggle with the state of affairs that struck their routine life.

Ground Realities of public life as opposed to the constitutional debate encircling the 18th amendment;

According to a report of ministry of planning and development around 29.5 % of population is below the line of poverty, which means that 55 million people suffer destitution. According to UNICEF Pakistan around 22.8 million kids are out of school, with 56% of population having no excess to pure drinking water, 30% of diseases and 40% deaths are linked to unclean water, poor sanitation and unsatisfactory healthcare system; whereas, parallel running two distinct educational systems give rise to growing inequalities, indifferences and sowing seeds of disintegration in society, as every other group forming part of it, is bitterly opposed to each other and does not know who to blame for?.

The nation collectively struggles to find a holistic approach to dilute the severity of crisis pervading our atmosphere, where finding direction is not easy. It could only come when their leaders would abandon such unsolicited debates and move forward towards resolving issues of basic kind that have been surfacing ever since country’s inception on the world map, because people find it mentally straining and physically torturous to attend public office to pursue their rightful matters, where they are treated like aliens, without according due respect as members of the citizenry.

This is simply because the government has never trained its officials to behave rightly with the public as they think the same are inferior because they are out of the system that can potentially reprimand them.

In such a case what an 18th amendment or any other constitutional document would bring is a matter of question, because if their effects are to be only felt on paper than even thousand documents like this could not bring any good to the public.

But if their concerns are heard and given a befitting response, than such efforts should be hurried to resolve public matters relating to poverty, education, healthcare, infrastructure, water and sanitation, safety and security and economic and physical well being.

Therefore, it is pertinent that the stakeholders decide whether what works for the country and not what is benefiting to them, they must, when it comes to national issues, forsake their political orientation and hence must act as leaders of the nation without any selfish tendency. The options must always be logical, principled, and flexibly open to reason so as to ensure growth in all corners, for that public interest needs to be prioritized.

Conclusion

It is part and parcel of history that written constitutions or any other laws are not a life long documents or holy scriptures that can not be changed, they are product of human intellect and analogy, that could faulter, become incapacitated or even may be timed for certain age. For it shall not be held to be conclusive for all the times to come.

As humans and their societies are lively product of evolution, new realities, emerging challenges and rising demands will take birth and pose in our way coming times allowing us evolve further, making it obligatory that we open ourselves to rationality, prudence and pluralism to seek redraissal of our issues and set off better governing principles and precedents for the coming generations. Because democracy is all about sitting together and deciding what is better for all.