It has been nearly one month since President Farooq Leghari was compelled by public opinion to write to both houses of Parliament urging them to pass effective legislation against corruption in high office. Yet all indications are that Parliament is in no mood to concede this request.
The issue of corruption in high office is not new. In recent times, however, it has also hit international headlines — Pakistan is said to be the most corrupt country in Asia and Ms Bhutto’s regime is thought to be the most corrupt in Pakistan’s history. But it is to Imran Khan’s credit that he was the first to rail against corruption, consistently and continuously, as “public enemy No-1”. Soon thereafter, Mr Nawaz Sharif decided to co-opt the issue by standing up in Parliament and demanding accountability from top to bottom. Mr Sharif then wrote to President Leghari asking him to help set up a judicial commission for this purpose. The President passed on Mr Sharif’s demand to Ms Bhutto and solicited her views. Ms Bhutto wrote back to say that while she agreed on the necessity of accountability, she felt that parliament rather than the judiciary should undertake this task. When Mr Leghari forwarded Ms Bhutto’s views to Mr Sharif, the leader of the opposition dropped his demand for a judicial commission and settled for a parliamentary committee as proposed by the prime minister.
But things did not work out as planned by the politicians. The press, in particular, was not terribly enthused by the idea of a thoroughly discredited parliament holding itself accountable in any meaningful sense. In due course, ringing denouncements followed, with editorials insisting that the newly independent judiciary be entrusted this task. This prompted Mr Sharif to publicly revert to his original demand for a judicial commission on accountability.
President Leghari was now constrained to act in the public interest. He sent a letter to both houses of Parliament urging them to pass a law which would satisfy the demand of the times. He also laid down some sensible guidelines for the proposed commission. However, the President’s advice so upset the Prime Minister that her interior minister was unleashed to take a couple of pot shots at the President. “If accountability has to start somewhere”, he thundered, “it should start with the President”. This, despite the fact that the President’s proposal had clearly indicated that the President should be included in the proposed accountability process.
Since then, both houses of Parliament have adopted delaying tactics to subvert the President’s advice. The treasury benches in the national assembly have, by shameful force of brute majority, pushed the proposal into the dark void of a select parliamentary committee. In the senate, the opposition has lamely agreed to the same strategy, despite having earlier insisted that it would use its majority in the house to push through a bill for adoption immediately. If parliament is a dead-end, what should we do?
The High Courts and the Supreme Court can, of course, take “suo-moto” notice of particular instances of alleged corruption. But this would be an ad-hoc process subject to interminable delays and stumbling blocks. Because it would do no more than touch the tip of the iceberg, it could hardly act as a surgical device to uproot the cancer that is eating away at our vitals.
Another route is via the office of the Chief Election Commissioner who has the constitutional power to scrutinise the conduct and accounts of parliamentarians and disqualify them at any stage of their tenure. But this too is a no-go path. The current CEC, handpicked by the prime minister, is not especially renowned for elaborating the provisions of his office in a satisfactory manner. In fact, he has been recently censured by the Supreme Court for failing to carry out important orders of the apex court.
So the ball is back in the President’s court. What should he do?
The obvious option is for President Leghari to wait for a judgment (due in the last week of this month) on the reference he has sent the SC asking it to determine the scope of his constitutional powers to appoint judges. If the SC determines in his favour, the President may be duly authorised, in consultation with the CJ, to exercise the moral, political and constitutional power to appoint not only 45 independent, upright and qualified judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court but also the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan. In the event, and quite apart from other measures, a strong and independent judiciary could be entrusted with the sort of accountability this country desperately needs without recourse to the legislature.
Pakistan is at a crossroads. The political system of representative democracy can be nurtured only by introducing a number of necessary checks and balances on the reckless abuse of authority by an all powerful prime minister or an unaccountable legislature. Far from being the be-all and end-all of modern democracy, fair and periodic elections, in which the grain is sifted from the chaff, are only the first steps in that direction. The President and the Supreme Court hold the keys to our future.