IT was yet another bizarre night. In less than an hour, the government managed to steamroll a series of laws through both Houses of Parliament amid the opposition’s raucous protests.
There was not even debate on these highly consequential pieces of legislation that are bound to impact the entire political spectrum in the country. One can only describe it as yet another act of deceptiveness on the part of the current dispensation that seems to have mastered the art.
Besides the anticipated increase in the number of Supreme Court judges and changes in the Practice and Procedure Act, which is meant to further tighten the executive’s hold on the country’s top judiciary, parliament also pushed through a number of controversial bills.
An earlier one, a few days ago, gave greater detention powers to the security forces. Reportedly, a controversial military-related clause had previously been dropped from the initial draft of the recently passed 26th Constitutional Amendment.
In this instance, it has been pointed out that parliament’s decision to extend the tenures of the military chiefs to five years has more to do with politics than any professional consideration.
Parliament’s move is likely to have long-term implications for the democratic process in the country, and further compromise the civilian role in the power matrix, as it will consolidate the security establishment’s hold on the power structure. Indeed, these extensions should not be seen in isolation, and one can perceive the ruling coalition’s compulsions in making such changes to the laws.
The government’s controversial actions in parliament will only weaken democracy.
Looking back at our history, we have seen more than one army chief grant himself an extension during periods of dictatorship; in fact, we have seen civilian governments allowing them a second term in office, on one pretext or another, too. But the latest changes will benefit the other services chiefs as well. The current air force chief had already been given a year’s extension in 2023. One can only wonder how the latest extensions will go down with those in the queue.
While the opposition PTI has not voted for the new laws, most of the party leaders have been shy of taking a clear public position on the laws related to the extensions. In fact, political leaders of all shades, forgetting their differences with one another, have agreed unanimously on granting such extensions previously.
One such example was the across-the-board support for a second term in office for former army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa in 2019, during the time of the PTI government. Both the PML-N and PPP, which had accused the general of facilitating PTI leader Imran Khan’s rise to power, voted for the bill on his extension in parliament. Everyone knows that the decision ultimately proved disastrous for the PTI. In fact, it is shocking that some political leaders were ready to offer their support to yet another extension for Gen Bajwa.
It is not surprising then that such capitulation to non-political forces should further weaken an already shaky democratic process, besides strengthening the establishment’s role of arbiter in the political power game. It is apparent that the present coalition government, with its questionable legitimacy, is heavily dependent on the establishment for its survival in power, and granting the latest extension is, many believe, part of an understanding between the two.
The timing of the amendment is curious as well, as it has overlapped with the passage of the changes to the laws that curb the independence of the judiciary. All this is a reflection of the lengthening shadow over the country’s power structure with diminishing space for true democratic freedom.
In fact, at another level, there has been a marked increase in the coercive power of the state to silence political dissent — as an example, many point to the appalling abduction of advocate Intezar Hussain Panjutha, who was lately recovered under controversial circumstances. Clamping down on political dissent seems to have become the norm, with the government busy bulldozing controversial laws through parliament without debate, all the while ignoring opposition voices.
What happened in parliament this week has further exposed the hypocrisy of our political leadership who claim to uphold civilian supremacy and democratic values. What we are witnessing today is more than hybrid rule with the increasing role of the security establishment in civilian departments. We are witnessing a weakened civilian set-up making it much easier for other players in the game of thrones. Arguably, the government could not have succeeded in bulldozing the 26th Amendment through parliament without the establishment’s backing, especially with efforts afoot to rein in an increasingly assertive top judiciary.
Some observers say that a separate constitutional bench with a pliant head would help squash the majority judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the redistribution of reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies, and restore the two-thirds majority of the ruling alliance in the House, which would be required for further constitutional amendments. The destruction of the very foundation of the Constitution can only strengthen the hand of undemocratic forces, which is already happening.
Interestingly, both the PML-N and PPP, who did not tire of citing the Charter of Democracy while campaigning for the creation of separate constitutional courts, seem to have conveniently forgotten their pledge under the same charter to uphold civilian supremacy and strengthen democratic forums. Their latest actions only contradict the Charter of Democracy.
It is a great pity that these political parties, despite having spent long years in both government and the opposition, have not yet learned any crucial lesson from their own history and are not averse to repeating the same mistakes. Sadly, political expediency and vested interests seem to have prevailed. But it might not be too long before their actions today come back to haunt them. In fact, a major question that many are asking is: how long can the present system, with all its contradictions, last?
The writer is an author and journalist.
Published in Dawn, November 6th, 2024