RENEWING PAKISTAN: PART II 1971-2005 (1988-2005)

<< “RENEWING PAKISTAN: 1971-2005” PART-I: 1971-1988

THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, PARTS I & II >>

Globalization of Media MCM404

Lesson 7

RENEWING PAKISTAN: PART II 1971-2005 (1988-2005)

Note: While the verbal content and the power-point presentation of this lecture focus on the period 1988-

2005, and deal with principal themes and events concerning the elected governments, it is also necessary for

students to learn about the nature, functioning, problems and challenges of caretaker governments in the

same period because 3 governments were specifically Caretaker Governments whose origins, duration and

duties are quite different from the normal elected governments.

This is why 3 handouts have been prepared to help students to reflect upon both the nature of Caretaker

Governments and the various aspects of accountability which have been a major feature of expectations

regarding Caretaker Governments.

These 3 handouts are also relevant as background material for lecture # 6 i.e. Renewing Pakistan: Part I,

1971-2005 (1971-1988) and for lecture # 10 i.e. "The political system of Pakistan" These 3 handouts

represent 3 essays written by the lecturer during his tenure as Minister of Petroleum & Natural Resources in

the Caretaker Government of November 1996-February 1997. These essays were published in leading

newspapers at that time and have also appeared as chapters in the book titled: "Storms and Rainbows" by

Javed Jabbar published by Summit Media and Royal Book Company, BG-5, Rex Centre, Zebunnissa Street,

Karachi 74400, Tel: 5684244, 5653418, e-mail: royalbook@hotmail.com.

The titles of the 3 chapters being provided as handouts are:

Challenges faced by Caretaker Governments

Accountability: History and Truth

Accountability by a Caretaker Government

Challenges faced by Caretaker Governments

A caretaker government in Pakistan begins with enormous disadvantages compared to an elected

government. There is immediately the issue of positive acceptance. Only in one out of the six caretaker

cabinets established in our country between 1988 and 1996 has a caretaker government been installed in

office with the consent of the principal political parties and the establishment. This was in the case of the

Moeen Qureshi cabinet of August-October 1993. In every other instance, the induction into office of a

caretaker government has occupied the place vacated by a government of the aggrieved political party or an

ousted coalition.

Of all the institutional forces that are active in the public process of the country, and these include the

political parties, the bureaucracy, the business community, the feudal and the agriculturist classes as also the

Armed Forces, that remain an important element of the public process, the caretaker cabinet is the least

prepared, by prior arrangement, or by sheer practice, to function as a team. Every other one of the above

forces in public life has been operating as a specialized unit for years, if not decades past.

Even in Pakistan where major political parties do not maintain shadow cabinets whereby senior opposition

leaders have the responsibility to specialize in the important ministries and sectors of government as a way of

monitoring what the government does and of preparing to take office after the next election, political parties

which form normal governments have the advantage of possessing a prior sense of team work and

coordination amongst the senior leaders who eventually occupy ministerial office.

In contrast, a caretaker cabinet is assembled virtually overnight, within hours or days of the dissolution of the

National Assembly and the dismissal of the previous government. Thus, suddenly, a set of 12 or 15 or 18

people have to begin functioning as a single team. Despite the fact that several team members, or all of them,

may know each other previously, they have never before worked together as a policy-making unit. While all

the members of a caretaker team may have an identity of views on the necessity for the dismissal of the

previous government, it is inevitable that they will have individual variances on substantive issues. In the

absence of a shared political ideology or manifesto, the caretaker cabinet has to very rapidly evolve its own

unified political approach to complex issues or adopt broad principles enunciated by the President who has

appointed the caretaker cabinet and by the Prime Minister who leads the team.

Globalization of Media MCM404

The current administration came into office at a time when the people had accumulated an extraordinarily

intense level of frustration with the lack of punitive accountability during the prior part of our history. In-

built checks and balances of our system, such as they are, had proved to be almost entirely ineffective in the

face of a veritable assault upon the norms of equity and democracy between 1993 and 1996. This assault was

made all the more devastating because it was being committed by an elected government. When even the

superior judiciary, despite delivering a historic judgement in the Judges' case which vigorously asserted the

principles of judicial independence, was unable to ensure prompt and effective enforcement o its judgements,

the level of public despair had built up by October 1996 to a level perhaps unrivalled in our democratic

history. Simultaneous to this total loss of faith in the political leadership there was a continuous decline in the

quality of governance, in a deepening economic crisis, and in polarisation and drift.

If, for a moment, we assume that the President acted on November 5 without first drawing up a long-term

strategy which would ensure a prevention of the very same sickness which we have just been relieved of, the

President simply had no choice but to dissolve an Assembly that had become the simple captive of a coalition

majority. This was comprised of numbers mainly held together by the force of charisma, with all its blinding

and distorting consequences as well as the carrots of corruption offered to the occasional floor-crosser, or

used more widely to keep the band in check.

The caretaker government is inducted into office almost always because the previous government has, in the

judgment of the President, violated its mandate. To take note of the consequences of these violations and to

identify cases as well as individuals responsible for these breaches of trust becomes an unpleasant but

unavoidable obligation for a caretaker government. In doing so the caretaker government immediately comes

face to face with the requirement that it remain neutral and impartial in order to be able to conduct free and

fair elections. However, the two duties need not be contradictory to each other. While pinpointing specific

deviations and malpractices, the interim government can make sure that there is an even-handed and

equitable approach to preparing for the electoral process. In this respect the fact that it is the Election

commission which has the supervisory authority to conduct the polls is a crucial determinant in ensuring

impartiality.

Notwithstanding the daily barrage of accusations by the ousted political party, the present caretaker

government has tried to ensure at every step that it remains truly impartial and neutral with regard to the

preparation for, and the conduct of, elections. Two realities alone substantiate this contention. One: The

balance and fairness with which government-controlled radio and TV are providing daily coverage to the

activities of the ousted political party's leadership and the invitation to the same ousted party leaders and to

independent critics to participate in live debates on electronic media. Two: the very large number of

candidates from the ousted party who are freely participating in the electoral process. If the caretaker

government was truly biased against the ousted party, then neither of the above two realities would be

evident, as they are at present.

In an entity as complex and volatile as a nation, the task of looking after only "day-to-day" affairs is itself

replete with long-term implications. Except for minor, procedural aspects of administration, most dimensions

of government require decisions to be made that have short-term as well as medium-term and long-term

consequences. The vital interests of 130 million people cannot be put into a state of suspension for 100 days

because each of those days can represent, in real terms, a whole year either gained or lost, depending on

whether an important decision is taken when it should be taken, or postponed because it has long-term

implications.

Perhaps the most difficult challenge that a caretaker government faces is to transcend the limitations of time.

From its very inception, a caretaker government and the entire population knows its exact tenure in office.

Faced with the task of fulfilling high expectations about conducting effective accountability as well as

formulating policies that elected governments tend to avoid because of either their unpleasantness or

potential unpopularity a caretaker government has to mobilise active and meaningful support from a variety

of groups and organisations, each of which is conscious of the brief nature of the caretaker tenure.

When recommending the promulgation of an Ordinance to meet an immediate legal requirement and give the

"kiss of life" to a good new law, there is the perennial question mark that hovers over such legislation with a

Globalization of Media MCM404

threatening "kiss of death" after four months, if the new National Assembly fails to enact the Ordinance into

a permanent law.

This being the objective reality, these are some of the disadvantages with which a caretaker government

begins and conducts its work, and in spite of them, is judged for its performance as the government of a

country.

Accountability: History and Truth

The principal facet of accountability on a world-wide basis is that there is not a single instance in over 180

nation-states where accountability has been enforced through civil, legal and peaceful means in any thing less

than years and months of preparation for trial in the courts. Except in situations where military rule prevails

and short, summary trials are possible or where outright wars and violence mark conditions in which the

"guilty" are instantly executed, there is not one example of any political leader anywhere in the world being

brought to trial and given a sentence of conviction within a few months.

Whether it is well-established and credible systems of justice as in the industrialized democracies of Europe

and North America or whether it is in the world's largest democracy such as in India, the existence of a

civilian political system makes it mandatory and unavoidable that the preparation of cases to hold politicians

accountable is done in a careful and systematic manner, which requires years of previous time.

Seen against this harsh reality, the wide-spread disappointment expressed by the people, politicians and the

Press in Pakistan at the alleged failure of the Caretaker Government to bring suspected crooks to book

becomes an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation. Moreover, when the High Courts of our country are

willing to give the benefit of relief to the accused and grant them bail either before arrest, or after arrest, then

the preparation of effective cases against the accused becomes slower and more difficult than normally so. In

one case, a High Court restrained the authorities from arresting a well-known individual who wanted to

participate in the elections by passing the order that he should "not be arrested in any case."

There are six theoretical requirements of accountability. First, it should be fair and even-handed in scope, not

partisan or party-based. Second, accountability should be multi-level, from the top to the bottom. Third, it

should be multi-sectoral: inclusive of politics, industry, agriculture, government service and all other sectors

of activity. Fourth, accountability should be just and equitable; it must allow for the accused to be able to

defend him and to have recourse to appeal, at least more than once. Fifth, accountability should bring

punitive action that is substantial enough to serve as a deterrent and discourage the recurrence of

malpractices. Sixth, accountability must include a review of sophisticated, complex white-collar crime, and in

doing this not be confined to the obvious and simplistic offences. Incidentally, the evil benefits of this type

of crime call for the formulation of a more appropriate term such as "white-collar and black-pocket crime"

because it is in "black pockets" that the loot eventually ends up.

Accountability is a long word with a short, sharp and irreducible meaning. Being held to account for one's

actions during life itself rather than in the hereafter requires facing up to the most basic truth of all. The

reality of one's own self. In turn this has large and deep implications. If we begin to practice accountability

ourselves instead of only preaching it, then the word has profound and disturbing consequences. Virtually

every aspect of our individual life comes under its purview. From our private self to our family's interests,

from our role in the neighbourhood and the community in which we live to our conduct in the professional

sector to which we belong and all the way through to the fulfilment o our responsibility as citizens,

accountability can become a vast, all-encompassing framework within which we must judge our own actions.

Fortunately for all of us at the present time, the word "accountability" has a far more specific, relatively

narrow and focused meaning. In 1996-97 in Pakistan, accountability has come to mean holding to account

the top political leaders of our country and their cronies for their misuse of public offices during the past

several years.

Though restricted in its scope, this particular interpretation of accountability has been growing steadily over

the past 50 years of our history. It accelerated onwards of the 1960s, gathered full steam during the 1980s

and has come to a boil t this time.

Globalization of Media MCM404

There was a demand to conduct accountability in pre-1971 Pakistan as well. But it was after we lost half of

our country and saw the horror of the complete lack of accountability for our great tragedy that the nation

became even more cynical about this process. Without assigning guilt to a particular individual, we cannot

ignore the fact that all the principal characters involved in the situation leading to the break-up of Pakistan

actually got "clean away" from the scene of the crime.

The worse that General Yahya Khan suffered was to remain under house arrest till his demise. Mr. Zulfiqar

Ali Bhutto became the President and Chief Martial Law Administrator and then Prime Minister. His

assassination in 1979 had nothing to do with his role in the 1971 tragedy. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman went from

captivity in Pakistan to become President of Bangladesh. His assassination in 1975 had to do with the post-

1971 situation in his country rather than with his role in events lading up to 1971. Similarly, all other players

suffered no ignominy for their role in the worst part of our history. The report of the Hamood-ur-Rahman

Commission which investigated the disintegration of our country remains secret 25 years after it was

compiled.

Our civil service was held to account for its own bureaucratic sins both by General Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar

Ali Bhutto but the sweeping and some times subjective nature of the outright dismissals tainted the processes.

Distortions in our relationship with accountability have an even more historic dimension. During the lifetime

of the Quaid-i-Azam himself, within weeks and months of the creation of Pakistan, reports began to emerge

about corruption at high levels in government. One of the major figures who despaired at this early neglect

of accountability was Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. There came the assassination of our first Prime Minister

Quaid-i-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan. A man who was so financially incorruptible as to leave only a paltry sum in

his bank account deserved to have his killers held to account for their heinous crime.

Over the past forty-years, speculative interpretations name prominent individuals as suspects in the Liaquat

assassination. The official inquiry was not received as a credible analysis. In addition to the original stain of

financial corruption on the white and spotlessly clean garment of accountability were now added the red

stains of blood; people could actually get away with murder. When the black gowns of the superior judiciary

joined the blood-stained garb of accountability, a decisive turning appoint was passed. The legitimisation of

the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad and his dismissal of

Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin re-established a new ground norm that went beyond the justified and

unavoidable dismissal of Dr. Khan Sahib's NWFP government in August 1948, when the provincial regime

declined to accept even the symbolic elements of the new state of Pakistan. The disruption of the

constitutional process, slow and weak as it was in 1953, marked collaboration between the forces of the

establishment and the superior judiciary. It then took over four decades to begin to correct this warp when

the activism and independence of the Supreme Court in 1996-97 became a potent factor.

With the imposition of martial law for the first time in 1958, accountability became subject to dictatorial

whim and to one individual's personal ambition. The re-impositions of martial law in 1969 and in 1977

aggravated the distortions that are inevitable when an arbitrary and authoritarian system determines, by sheer

individual discretion alone, the parameters of accountability. The judicial verdict that sent Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

to the gallows in April 1979 represented a callous collaboration between the personal elements of martial law

used only for selfish purposes and the dignity and credibility of the superior judiciary that was usurped for the

sake of expediency.

In this historic setting, from the very out-set, the absence of a constitution subverted accountability, both as a

principle and as a process. The civilian political sector also became part of the systematic evasion of

accountability.

The 1956 Constitution was not permitted to live long enough to create a viable methodology. The 1962

Constitution did not adequately recognise the weightage that was owed to East Pakistan. Though the Legal

Framework Order of General Yahya Khan was well-intentioned it was ultimately, badly executed. Thus, the

1973 Constitution, though misleading as an ideal parliamentary format, simply came too late to do much

good. This is why its principal sponsor very quickly undermined its spirit by moving seven amendments to it,

these changes being hostile to the independence of the judiciary. Between 1985 and 1996, though there have

been attempts to enforce accountability by the political sector a la Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo's dismissal of

Globalization of Media MCM404

three Ministers on alleged or real grounds of corrupt practices, these attempts have been limited and largely

inconclusive.

Perhaps there has never been a greater distance between the political sector and the truth of accountability

than the gap that prevailed between these two parameters from 1993 to 1996. These three years witnessed an

unprecedented deviation in the use of executive power by the holders of public office from the norms of

equity and transparency.

Accountability by a Caretaker Government

Worldwide, the experience of accountability is a mixed one. Despite the existence of institutional checks and

balances in the industrialised democracies, individuals are able to circumvent these restraints. Initially,

President Richard Nixon and Vice-President Agnew and their colleagues in the US Presidency were able to

indulge in patently illegal actions for a considerable period of time before two investigative journalists forced

the institutional system to, in turn, enforce accountability upon them.

Yet, 20 years later, we have the spectacle of President Clinton being re-elected to a second term even while

the investigation into the Whitewater case continued in the third year. There is also the case of Speaker Newt

Gingrich being re-elected to head the House of Representatives in January 1997 despite a self-acknowledged

breach of ethics and despite having been strongly censured by the House Ethics Committee.

There are a number of other individuals associated with corrupt practices in their local constituencies or in

national scams, such as the housing and loans association project in the USA who have successfully evaded

accountability. In India, the Bofors Guns Scandal involving Rajiv Gandhi which erupted in 1986 continues to

be investigated 11 years later. Earlier, Sanjay Gandhi was also associated with the Maruti car project in which

there were accusations of the government unduly favouring him. With a number of charges against him, the

former Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was re-elected to parliament and then continued to go in

and out of court in connection with cases filed against him.

In South Korea, two former heads of state were prosecuted for corruption and for ordering firing on

civilians. They were then sentenced to stiff punishment, but only after years of investigative preparation of

their cases. In Japan, a number of Prime Ministers had to resign their offices due to charges of financial

malpractice. There, too, it took some years before a couple of convictions could be obtained. Italy presents

the finest example in contemporary times of comprehensive accountability enforced in the political sector.

The integrity and determination of a single magistrate and the willingness of one small-time politician to

confess to his misdeeds became a giant snowball that flattened dozens of leading politicians, including former

Prime Ministers.

Our own historic experience of accountability and the international context of this process were in vivid

contrast to the extraordinarily high expectation of the people of Pakistan when President Farooq Leghari

dissolved the National Assembly on November 5 last year. The Caretaker Government's own early

enthusiastic references to the need for accountability acted like sparks to a dense, dry forest that was swiftly

inflamed, whipped up by a remarkable level of sheer hype in the Press, which conveniently omitted to study

the worldwide experience of accountability. While references were made to the limitations of the

investigative system available to the caretaker government to identify the intricacies by which contemporary

corruption is committed in high places, the overall approach to this issue remained, and remains, quite

unreasonable.

The additional restriction was that the Caretaker Government had to remain fair and impartial in assisting the

Election Commission in the conduct of elections on February 3. The prosecution of individuals belonging to

particular political parties was instantly seen as victimisation and an erosion of the neutrality of the Caretaker

Government.

The Caretaker Government took nine sets of actions that directly facilitate accountability. Perhaps the most

important is the promulgation of the Ehtesaab (Accountability) Ordinance. This represents an entirely new

framework for the subject. For the first time, an individual citizen has been given the legal right to bring an

Globalization of Media MCM404

offence and the individual suspected for the offence to the attention of an authority responsible for

accountability.

Previously, it was only the government or the judiciary that had such a right. In conceptual terms, this is a

revolutionary change. At the same time, the process has been made independent of the Executive the

moment it is referred to the Chief Ehtesaab Commissioner. Thus, there is a new enhanced judicial power as

a determinant of accountability.

The second set of actions by the federal and provincial governments was to initiate investigations into misuse

of power and malpractice by both political leaders and officers in recent years. Inevitably, the initial

concentration of this work was on the immediately preceding government whose tenure of office was from

1993 to 1996.

This period alone offered the scope of a massive scale for inquiry: hundreds of deviations from laws and rules

were identified. In the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources alone, 50 cases referred o the Ministry

of Interior for further investigation and consideration for onward reference to the Chief Ehtesaab

Commissioner. The Auditor General of Pakistan was invited to conduct special audits of certain

departments. Based on the findings o these special audits and other investigations, a total of 239 cases (at the

rate of over two cases per day in our tenure!) have been referred to the commissioner by the Caretaker

Government.

Thirdly, transfer of officers and staff was undertaken on a comprehensive basis to ensure effective

investigation. Contrary to the view often put out by critics of the caretaker government that, conduct of

elections being its primary task, no a single officer should be transferred, we now have a situation where the

Supreme Court of Pakistan has upheld corruption as a justifiable ground for the dissolution of the National

Assembly and the dismissal of the government.

Unless officers and staff associated with malpractices are removed, there can be no meaningful investigation

of corruption. As it is, even after their transfers, the going is slow because there are still remnants of the

appointees from the previous government wh9o either have covert loyalties to the ousted lot or who are

themselves so corrupt that they will not easily facilitate investigation by a new set-up.

There was an additional problem of not being able to take instant punitive action against the officers being

transferred out of departments because of the protection that they enjoy under the law and under their

service rules. At the worst, they can be appo8nted `Officers on Special Duty' where they continue to enjoy

the same pay and benefits. After moving dozens, if not hundreds of officers, finding new and more reliable

and competent officers to help conduct accountability was in itself a significant task undertaken by the

caretaker government.

Fourth: For the first time, as many as 30 senior officers as well as a handful of politicians were arrested on

suspicion of their involvement in corrupt practices.

Fifth: A large number of dubious allotments of public land and special favours to selected private parties were

either cancelled outright or given due legal notice of suspension to firm up accountability.

Sixth: A number of amendments were introduced over a period of time to election-related laws. The main

objective was to make it mandatory for all individuals seeking elective offices to reveal the wealth and income

that they personally possess as well as the wealth in the name of their spouses and immediate family

members.

Information about the amounts that aspirants owe to utility organizations and to government guest houses,

hostels etc. was made public, breaking from convention, long lists of companies and individuals who have

defaulted on their back loans were also published in the press. An amount of over Rs 3.67 billion, a sum

badly needed by the national exchequer, was obtained through such measures.

Seventh: On the electronic media, unprecedented live telecasts were arranged of face-to-face encounters and

debates between representatives of political parties and individuals with completely conflicting viewpoints on

Globalization of Media MCM404

major issues. The subject of accountability was a recurring topic in these live telecasts. This enabled a new

level of mass participation in the frank dialogue and discussion on how accountability should be conducted in

Pakistan. Without censorship or interruption, participants in these live debates on TV and radio freely made

extremely critical comments on the caretaker government, reflecting the tolerance and commitment to

freedom of the interim government, an essential pre-requisite for the fair conduct of accountability.

Eighth: The comprehensive reforms made by the cabinet in the use of Executive power through the abolition

of discretionary authority, whether for the allocation of plots of land or tanker loads of oil products, marked a

significant step forward in enforcing accountable and responsible behaviour by public officials.

Ninth: the promulgation of the Freedom of Information Ordinance has given citizens a radical new power to

gain access to a wide range of documentation and data which had previously been kept far away from public

scrutiny. By this one act alone, the whole process of accountability has taken a giant leap forward and made it

possible for the mysteries of bureaucracy and policy-making to be laid open to review by citizens.

In conducting accountability in the 1990s, special attention has to be given to the intricacy of white-collar-

black-pocket crime. This is a dense, multi-layered phenomenon which is neither simple nor straight forward

like conventional crime. Unusual patience and persistence are required to un-cover the diversions that are

deliberately planted to make detection slow and difficult.

This kind of crime is also commissioned at crucial stages by verbal, rather than written instructions. Through

just a wink and a nod a nefarious deal worth millions of dollars can be sealed for the benefit of one or more

persons, without leaving a trace. A single telephone call exchanged between two individuals can ensure that a

transaction is shaped in a certain way and when the government of the day is itself in-charge of the

telecommunications sector, it can also ensure that certain types of phone calls are not "tapped" or recorded

to avoid leaving any evidence.

When it involves written records, white-collar-black-pocket crime is a linguistic and contextual enigma which

has to be very carefully unravelled. For instance, if the individual drafting the language and the terms of a

commercial tender document wants to slant the conditions in favour of a particular potential bidder, then the

minute details of specifications can be subtly changed so that only one or two potential bidders out of a

dozen are able to eventually pre-qualify and win the contract. To track this deviousness requires an expertise

in specialised investigation that is in short supply.

In this type of crime there is a collaborative dimension whereby co-conspirators are not motivated to confess

their crimes because there is so much more at stake than merely one individual's liberty; there is a whole gang

of crooks sharing the spoils. Three options mark the future of the process of accountability in Pakistan after

the caretaker government hands over power to the elected government. One option is that the approach

taken by the caretakers leads to an irreversible movement which may continue indefinitely into the future.

Elements such as the Chief Ehtesaab Commissioner, citizens at large, the independent Pres and electronic

media will together bring to bear their combined pressure to keep this process alive and secure feasible

results, whether it takes six months or six years to do so.

Another option is that a few weeks after the departure of the caretakers, the Ehtessab Ordinance is allowed

to lapse and the whole process derails and comes to a grinding halt. The crooks are released, and the old

merry-go-round resumes again.

Finally, there is the option that if the accountability process, set into motion by the caretakers, comes to

nought, then a new, militant and probably violent mass upsurge takes place, when the accumulated anger and

frustration of the people assumes an uncontrollable fury.

One hopes that this last option never becomes necessary and that with wisdom and courage our people

pursue and continue to refine the process of accountability which has been introduced by the Caretaker

Government of November 1996-February, 1997.

Table of Contents: