Perceptron
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 0
A user manual for statecraft
Haider Nizamani | Opinion
ON Jan 26, Dr Manmohan Singh a practising Sikh prime minister of predominantly Hindu India is scheduled to head to Rajpath, New Delhis equivalent of Islamabads Jinnah Avenue, to attend the Republic Day parade.
In Pakistan, meanwhile, Yousuf Raza Gilani the duly elected prime minister faces a hostile environment that seems to include the military top brass and the judiciary. A number of voices, amongst them unelected politicians, are calling for his resignation.
From the media reports, it would seem that some quarters already consider him a dishonest and untrustworthy Muslim, as those are the qualities he is supposed to possess as the prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as per the oath of his office.
The difference between Pakistan and India at the current juncture symbolises the markedly different paths the two countries have traversed in terms of statecraft.
Dr Singh is reaping the fruits of the hard work that Indias post-Independence leadership put into creating the rulebook for running the republic. Mr Gilani is in part paying the price for the inaction of Pakistans early leaders in not coming up with an agreed-upon user manual for the country.
Consider the difference: Gen V.K. Singh, the current chief of the Indian army, has gone to court against his government. Yet Prime Minister Singh is not reduced to having to sleep with one eye open for fear of a military takeover. Whether the general retires this March or the next, no politician worth the name is demanding an apology from the prime minister for having hurt the top soldiers pride.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani prime minister is warned of grievous consequences by the countrys army merely for suggesting that he would not tolerate a state within a state, an allusion to the informal power wielded by sections of the security agencies.
Prime Minister Gilani, therefore, must govern with greater wisdom than was anticipated of him.
Modern-day constitutions are user manuals for states. Manufacturers enclose such manuals with electronic or mechanical products for good reasons: right from correctly setting up the product to troubleshooting when a problem arises, the user manual is the document one consults.
States are, obviously, far more complex entities than automobiles or cellphones. Leadership that puts effort into drafting a robust user manual provides much-needed stability to the polity in question.
Another enduring quality of a good constitution is its ability to help with troubleshooting when managers belonging to different arms of the state run into problems. Above all, a constitution would be no more than a collection of high-sounding phrases if the very people who are supposed to abide by its rules, flout them. Following Independence, Indias leaders created and abided by, for the most part, the constitution. Those on the Pakistani side chose not to tread that path. And these choices had far-reaching consequences.
Pakistan and India gained Independence in 1947 and those elected in the 1946 elections assumed the role of constituent assemblies in their respective domains. The 1935 Government of India Act served as a temporary user manual for the new states.
The Indian political leadership wasted no time and started to work on framing the constitution for the country. This was by no means an easy task but the leadership did not use difficulties as an excuse to put constitution-making on hold.
Amongst others, towering figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Bhim Rao Ambedkar, born into an untouchable caste and a vocal opponent of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, put in countless hours over the next two years.
By November 1949, they were able to submit to the constituent assembly the draft constitution which came into force on Jan 26, 1950.
Indias first general elections based on universal adult franchise were held a year later under the new constitution. Now, 96 amendments down the road, the constitution remains for India the agreed-upon user manual for most political forces in a country of over one billion people.
Well-known historian and commentator Ramachandra Guha is of the view that thanks to the genius and hard work of Indias early leaders, even mediocre people are able to run the republic without fear of being taken over by unelected institutions.In Pakistan, meanwhile, the leaders who were at the helm of affairs in its early years avoided constitution-making, seemingly like the plague. In essence, the Government of India Act of 1935 remained the user manual for the new republic for a very long time.
Instead of legislative complexity and compromises, Pakistani leaders chose executive fiat to govern a heterogeneous society. The political leadership in Karachi, Pakistans first capital, leaned increasingly on civil and military bureaucracies to stay in power.
This seemed to be the easier and preferred arrangement for those that ran the show in the centre in Pakistan.
What these figures did not realise, though, was that by conceding ground to civil and military bureaucracies, politicians were digging a hole for themselves.
During the first 25 years of its existence, Pakistan had two arbitrarily drafted constitutions backed up by authoritarian rule that eventually led to the break-up of the country in 1971.
Pakistan came up with the first agreed-upon user manual on April 10, 1973; this was tossed out again four years later. In the same month 37 years later, parliament passed the 18th Amendment to revive the countrys much-battered user manual.
Pakistani politicians are quick to point to Malaysia, Singapore and now even Turkey as models of success. As far as the constitutional contract is concerned, though, these countries should serve as examples of how not to run a federation.
Pakistan doesnt need to emulate India in terms of the theory and practice of constitutional arrangements. But if the aim is to run Pakistan as a federal parliamentary democracy, there is no harm in careful and critical learning from India where the user manual has served the republic reasonably well for more than 60 years.
The writer is a Canada-based academic.
Haider Nizamani | Opinion
ON Jan 26, Dr Manmohan Singh a practising Sikh prime minister of predominantly Hindu India is scheduled to head to Rajpath, New Delhis equivalent of Islamabads Jinnah Avenue, to attend the Republic Day parade.
In Pakistan, meanwhile, Yousuf Raza Gilani the duly elected prime minister faces a hostile environment that seems to include the military top brass and the judiciary. A number of voices, amongst them unelected politicians, are calling for his resignation.
From the media reports, it would seem that some quarters already consider him a dishonest and untrustworthy Muslim, as those are the qualities he is supposed to possess as the prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as per the oath of his office.
The difference between Pakistan and India at the current juncture symbolises the markedly different paths the two countries have traversed in terms of statecraft.
Dr Singh is reaping the fruits of the hard work that Indias post-Independence leadership put into creating the rulebook for running the republic. Mr Gilani is in part paying the price for the inaction of Pakistans early leaders in not coming up with an agreed-upon user manual for the country.
Consider the difference: Gen V.K. Singh, the current chief of the Indian army, has gone to court against his government. Yet Prime Minister Singh is not reduced to having to sleep with one eye open for fear of a military takeover. Whether the general retires this March or the next, no politician worth the name is demanding an apology from the prime minister for having hurt the top soldiers pride.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani prime minister is warned of grievous consequences by the countrys army merely for suggesting that he would not tolerate a state within a state, an allusion to the informal power wielded by sections of the security agencies.
Prime Minister Gilani, therefore, must govern with greater wisdom than was anticipated of him.
Modern-day constitutions are user manuals for states. Manufacturers enclose such manuals with electronic or mechanical products for good reasons: right from correctly setting up the product to troubleshooting when a problem arises, the user manual is the document one consults.
States are, obviously, far more complex entities than automobiles or cellphones. Leadership that puts effort into drafting a robust user manual provides much-needed stability to the polity in question.
Another enduring quality of a good constitution is its ability to help with troubleshooting when managers belonging to different arms of the state run into problems. Above all, a constitution would be no more than a collection of high-sounding phrases if the very people who are supposed to abide by its rules, flout them. Following Independence, Indias leaders created and abided by, for the most part, the constitution. Those on the Pakistani side chose not to tread that path. And these choices had far-reaching consequences.
Pakistan and India gained Independence in 1947 and those elected in the 1946 elections assumed the role of constituent assemblies in their respective domains. The 1935 Government of India Act served as a temporary user manual for the new states.
The Indian political leadership wasted no time and started to work on framing the constitution for the country. This was by no means an easy task but the leadership did not use difficulties as an excuse to put constitution-making on hold.
Amongst others, towering figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Bhim Rao Ambedkar, born into an untouchable caste and a vocal opponent of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, put in countless hours over the next two years.
By November 1949, they were able to submit to the constituent assembly the draft constitution which came into force on Jan 26, 1950.
Indias first general elections based on universal adult franchise were held a year later under the new constitution. Now, 96 amendments down the road, the constitution remains for India the agreed-upon user manual for most political forces in a country of over one billion people.
Well-known historian and commentator Ramachandra Guha is of the view that thanks to the genius and hard work of Indias early leaders, even mediocre people are able to run the republic without fear of being taken over by unelected institutions.In Pakistan, meanwhile, the leaders who were at the helm of affairs in its early years avoided constitution-making, seemingly like the plague. In essence, the Government of India Act of 1935 remained the user manual for the new republic for a very long time.
Instead of legislative complexity and compromises, Pakistani leaders chose executive fiat to govern a heterogeneous society. The political leadership in Karachi, Pakistans first capital, leaned increasingly on civil and military bureaucracies to stay in power.
This seemed to be the easier and preferred arrangement for those that ran the show in the centre in Pakistan.
What these figures did not realise, though, was that by conceding ground to civil and military bureaucracies, politicians were digging a hole for themselves.
During the first 25 years of its existence, Pakistan had two arbitrarily drafted constitutions backed up by authoritarian rule that eventually led to the break-up of the country in 1971.
Pakistan came up with the first agreed-upon user manual on April 10, 1973; this was tossed out again four years later. In the same month 37 years later, parliament passed the 18th Amendment to revive the countrys much-battered user manual.
Pakistani politicians are quick to point to Malaysia, Singapore and now even Turkey as models of success. As far as the constitutional contract is concerned, though, these countries should serve as examples of how not to run a federation.
Pakistan doesnt need to emulate India in terms of the theory and practice of constitutional arrangements. But if the aim is to run Pakistan as a federal parliamentary democracy, there is no harm in careful and critical learning from India where the user manual has served the republic reasonably well for more than 60 years.
The writer is a Canada-based academic.
