In one week prime minister Nawaz Sharif has exploded two bombshells. The ‘Sartaj Doctrine’ now holds full sway. And the President of Pakistan has been stripped off his 8th amendment powers. Both developments could have far-reaching, ‘make-or-break’ consequences.
The economic package is based on significant social, economic and political assumptions. (1) Radical income and sales tax breaks for the salaried, trade and industrial classes should persuade these classes to (a) voluntarily enter the tax net. (b) voluntarily pay a greater amount in tax than before. (c) voluntarily document all their transactions. (2) A radical lowering of import levies should persuade the trading and industrial classes to reduce the prices of the products they sell instead of increasing their profit margins. (3) The substantial decrease in indirect import-duty revenues should be more than offset by an increase in direct income and sales tax revenues. (4) The substantial increase in the import bill should be more than offset by an increase in export receipts so that the trade gap constantly remains within the limits prescribed by the level of reserves and the threat of default does not rear its ugly head. (5) All the measures should yield targeted dividends in the short term so that (a) the fiscal deficit remains constantly in check and no resort to heavy bank borrowing or large-scale printing of money is necessary (b) the record should speak for itself so that the IMF quickly comes on board with a couple of billion dollars in Extended Structural Adjustment Programme support. (6) The immediate crisis in the balance of payments on account of heavy domestic and foreign debt payments in the next 90 days should be averted by a rapid and sufficient inflow of funds from resident and expatriate Pakistanis into the prime minister’s debt-relief fund.
If these assumptions turn out to be misplaced, the ‘Sartaj Doctrine’ could fall flat on its face and provoke an economic and political crisis of irrevocable proportions. This is what might happen: (1) The fiscal deficit would shoot up to over 8 per cent, fuel inflation, squeeze industrial credit and expansion, and hurt exports. (2) The balance of payments would go awry, provoke a situation of sudden-death default and scare away international donors and investors for good. (3) Social unrest would lead to political instability and jeopardise the new regime’s chances of long-term survival.
The ‘Sartaj Doctrine’, it may be noted, does not inspire too much confidence in the stock market. Nor is there anything in it for the worker on the street or the peasant in his village. It is based on a narrow and highly volatile set of assumptions regarding anticipated behavioural changes in the urban and rural propertied classes. It seems to be motivated by other than purely economic considerations. An unsettling, high-risk element is built into the strategy.
The removal of the 8th amendment powers of the President has, fortunately, evoked no such serious misgivings. In fact, the 13th amendment to the constitution which repeals the 8th amendment was unanimously adopted by both houses of Parliament and accorded a sweeping welcome by editorials across the country. However, some arguments in favour of the repeal appear to be misguided or self-serving. Consider.
The fact that the 8th amendment is a product of a military dictator has been adduced in favour of the repeal under a “democratic” dispensation. But this logic is weak. Notwithstanding his current populism, Mr Nawaz Sharif is also, lest we forget, a product of the same dictator. We don’t proffer this fact against his legitimacy as a popular prime minister today because Mr Sharif is now a leader in his own right, irrespective of his background or political origins. The 8th amendment, too, should be judged on the basis of its intrinsic merits or demerits, rather than simply as a legacy of a dictator.
It is also argued that the 8th amendment was a source of unwanted, even unmitigated, ousters of four civilian governments. But, surely, it is a moot point whether at least two such governments deserved to complete their term. Mohammad Khan Junejo ran a good, clean ship and behaved in a decent, democratic and responsible manner. His dismissal was totally unjustified. Likewise Benazir Bhutto’s government from 1988 to 1990. It wasn’t terribly inspiring but it didn’t deserve a summary dismissal. Ms Bhutto was the victim of an 8th amendment conspiracy manufactured by Nawaz Sharif, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, General Hameed Gul and General Aslam Beg. But the other two dismissals — in 1993 and 1996 — need to be seen in an altogether different light. Mr Sharif became prime minister in 1990 on the basis of a hugely rigged election. His government lacked legitimacy. Soon thereafter, power went to his head and he began to behave in a fascistic manner. The press was attacked. Corruption and inefficiency acquired notorious proportions. The roots of terrorism in Karachi were laid during this time. Pakistan was about to be declared a terrorist state by the United States. Economic bankruptcy stared us in the face. And so on. Mr Sharif’s ouster was thoroughly justified. Much the same can be said about Benazir Bhutto’s second regime. When President Leghari booted her government out on 5th November, 1996, everyone heaved a sigh of relief and acclaimed his action.
It is also sometimes said that the 8th amendment was a seriously destabilising factor in Pakistan’s quest for democratic stability. This, too, is only partly true. Yes, it was the cause of democratic instability from 1988 to 1990 when it led to two unjustified dismissals. But it was, surely, the effect of democratic instability from 1993 to 1996 when Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, in turns, wittingly brought the country to the brink of constitutional, political and economic anarchy. Indeed, if it hadn’t been for the buffer of the 8th amendment, we might have had to reckon with martial law in 1988, 1990 and 1993.
Some of the more cruel ironies of history have also been missed or deliberately ignored in the current euphoria over the dismantling of this “notorious” piece of law. Leading democratic lights of today like Mr Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister; Mr Waseem Sajjad, the Senate chairman; Mr Elahi Bux Soomro, the Speaker; and countless other so-called “children of Zia ul Haq” were, until not so long ago, the finest and most articulate defenders of the 8th amendment. Indeed, Mr Sharif openly willed President Ishaq Khan in 1990 and President Farooq Leghari in 1996 to use the 8th amendment to dismiss Benazir Bhutto’s government. Ms Bhutto, too, didn’t have second thoughts when the boot was on the other foot in 1993. A quick glance at the editorials, columns and newsreports of 1990, 1993 and 1996 would also suggest that important sections of the press and the Bar were no less guilty of opportunism than the politicians. Indeed, an overview of the four judicial decisions following the four ousters of governments at the hands of the 8th amendment would indicate that the superior judiciary had to make some terribly creative legal innovations to arrive at politically “acceptable” judicial decisions at variance with one another. Similarly, Mr Khalid Anwar has earned the dubious distinction of being the only lawyer in Pakistan to have successfully attacked, defended and then attacked the 8th amendment in the short span of just three years!
We must, finally, note the greatest irony of all. The three executioners of the 8th amendment have not escaped its fallout either. General Zia didn’t live to enjoy the fruits of his labour. Ghulam Ishaq Khan tried to use the 8th amendment once too often and was packed off to Bannu for his troubles. And Farooq Leghari — who began by advocating its repeal and ended up by enjoying the vast powers that it bestowed upon him — dealt it a death blow by knocking out Benazir Bhutto and consciously enabling Nawaz Sharif to come to absolute power. All that remains of Mr Leghari’s pious intentions and unconventional political wisdom is the corpse of his still-born CDNS “baby” which Mr Sharif has promised to abort without further ado.
If we consider the opportunisms and ironies involved in the advocacy of and opposition to the 8th amendment in the last decade, we might fairly come to the following conclusion: When it was brought into the constitution, General Zia’s intention was to keep the reins of dictatorial power firmly in his hands. Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s philosophy was much the same in 1990. However, he showed a marked reluctance to use it in 1993. Similarly, Farooq Leghari went to great lengths to avoid a situation in which he would be compelled to use it. On both occasions, in 1993 and 1996, it was used only to scuttle arrogant, unaccountable, irresponsible and hugely corrupt parliaments, governments and prime ministers bent on creating anarchy under the garb of democracy. If the last two prime ministers had delivered good government as promised, there would have been no need for the Presidents to recourse to the 8th amendment. Nor would there have been any need for the 8th amendment to justify itself as a buffer between the civilians and the military.
The controversial 8th amendment has now vanished without a whimper from either the President or the army. This was bound to happen, irrespective of who won the elections. The intentions of both Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif were clear enough, even to those uninitiated in the art of power politics. In fact, a bitterly estranged Ms Bhutto had gone so far as to declare before the elections that if Mr Sharif became prime minister, she would support him in his efforts to get rid of it. Mr Sharif may also justifiably claim that his huge mandate will brook no interference from a President who had, of late, begun to enjoy throwing his weight about.
If President Farooq Leghari’s delusions have been shattered within the blinking of an eye, it is imperative that the new prime minister should not now begin to labour under any of his own making. Mr Nawaz Sharif is a more powerful prime minister of Pakistan today than the prime minister of Britain and the President of the United States are in their own countries. There are no checks and balances at all upon Mr Sharif. He now has the power to do unlimited good or unleash unmitigated evil. He has erased the 8th amendment from our constitution. Will he be successful in erasing it from our memory?
We have come full circle to 1973 when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto epitomised the aspirations of the masses and went on to become a most powerful and autocratic prime minister. Mr Bhutto, of course, succumbed to the corruptions of absolute power and paid a terrible price for betraying his mandate. We trust Mr Sharif will imbibe the lessons of history and prove to be a benevolent, compassionate and able leader of a truly democratic Pakistan.