Region 
 

Presidential Wisdom

The time has come for Pakistan to further reinforce its democratic institutions by employing mechanisms that truly reflect its real outlook rather than blindly following old traditions.

By Dr M Ali Hamza | April 2020


The metaphor is a rhetorical expression for linguistic effect as it denotes one sense when another is intended. One popular example is William Shakespeare’s “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players, they have their exits and their entrances.”

There are plenty of political metaphors used in recent history. For instance, the PML (N) has developed the phrase “Khalai Makhlooq” - a mysterious machination in a government that holds the actual power, irrespective of the government’s evident existence. Likewise, the metaphor, “rubber stamp” is gaining attention after 24 Ordinances have been passed by the President of Pakistan since September 2018. Before getting into the aggressive use of Article 89, that allows the president to make and promulgate an Ordinance, let us understand the metaphor.

Rubber stamp refers to a person or institution with considerable de jure power: practices that are legally recognized, but the practical presence is not appreciable in regular circumstances. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is characteristically a “rubber stamp” to an elected parliament, even though he legally enjoys significant standby powers or can differ with the parliament’s decisions. Similarly, in parliamentary republics, the president is often described as a rubber stamp and considered a figurehead: a leader whose authority is entirely symbolic – something of a constitutional monarch.

One of the most famous examples of a rubber stamp institution is the Reichstag of Nazi Germany, which, with one voice, confirmed all decisions already made by Adolf Hitler and the highest-ranking members of the Nazi Party.

Many legislatures in authoritarian countries are considered rubber stamps, such as communist parliaments. The Chinese National People’s Congress or the Italian Chamber of Fasci and Corporations during the Fascist rule, are good examples. It is pertinent to mention that the power of law-making by the president in the parliamentary democratic structure is a legacy of the British times.

The British Empire introduced a law similar to Article 89 in constitutional monarchy to keep control over their colonies, but right after the geographical contraction of the British Empire, the UK eliminated the law and restrained the powers of the monarch. The reason was the maturity of the democratic parliamentary system.

Article 89 in the Constitution of Pakistan allows the President to make and disseminate a decree commonly known as Ordinance, when the Senate or National Assembly is not in session, or when he realizes that circumstances fulfill the necessary need to take instant action. The same powers are bestowed on the governor of the province by virtue of article 128. The Ordinance is, by its very nature, a temporary statute and is not a permanent law. It remains in force for a limited period and ceases to operate without repeal. Its life, under Article 89, is four months and under Article 128, it is three months.

The legislature puts restrictions on the issuance of ordinances but these can be issued when the national assembly is not in session and when there is an emergent situation that cannot be tackled without issuing the Ordinance to advert a deadlock. But again it is the discretion of the resident to consider whether something is emergent or not. It is vividly understood that the presence of Article 89 makes the elected parliament just a toy parliament and encourages the president to be a rubber stamp for some individuals sitting in the power corridors. Is this because our democratic life is in its infancy?

There are three possible options to resolve the situation. First, Article 89, which offers de Jure powers to the president of Pakistan must be repealed. An accord should be built and politicians must unanimously stop rubber stamping. There are a considerable number of individuals in Pakistan who believe that repealing this Article will create a true sense of democracy. Secondly, we can happily live with this Article if the Ordinances are in the best interest of the people. These Ordinances are poison pills for the citizens, and government is protecting the powerful and special interest groups through pork barrel legislation or patronage.

Using special powers and bypassing the parliament for extending ease to the public must not be a concern at all. Thirdly, and most importantly, since 1947, Pakistan never had a king, tsar or monarch like the UK. Then why are we accommodating a symbolic position and offering certain authorities to the ceremonial rank? Being a parliamentary system, may be we cannot avoid it, but we can, if we shift to a presidential democratic system like the USA, Turkey, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea, France, etc. This option is difficult to digest for most of our political experts.

They are probably naïve enough not to realize that Pakistan is not a mutation from a monarchy to a democracy, but was genuinely born as a democracy. Therefore, a ceremonial president does not make sense and is rationally inadequate. The Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) describes Pakistan as a hybrid regime, referring to its mixture of borrowed systems. It is true that this is an utterly irrational mixture and we need to fix it.

The intention is not to offend Mr. Arif Alvi when he is called a rubber stamp president. Until the third option is not considered, current and future presidents of Pakistan must be prepared for derogatory comments.

Read More

One thought on “Presidential Wisdom”