fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Parliament vs bureaucracy?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Marvi Memon
The supremacy of parliament issue can only be resolved through political will and for that politicians need to make a supreme effort. I would like to narrate an example of how politicians and parliamentarians from Jan 26 to Jan 30 did make an effort and yet bureaucracy scuttled the effort.
On Monday, Jan 26, I presented a resolution for signature of senior political leadership of Pakistan which was worded: "This house resolves to ask US President Obama to send a US envoy on Kashmir or to include Kashmir's resolution in the mandate of the US envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan." I had the support of my party leadership and MNA Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, along with MNA G B Meher and MNA Attiya Innayatullah, signed it. The other senior political leaders to sign the resolution were firstly MNA Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the JUI-F, MNA Syed Khurshid Shah of the PPP, MNA Asfandyar Wali Khan of the ANP, MNA Chaudhry Nisar Khan of the PML-N and MNA Sherpao of the PPP-S. Later FATA signed this version too. The MQM had certain reservations so they signed the following which got us the unanimous support needed to pass the resolution for which I am grateful: "This house underscores the importance of the peaceful and just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. And in this context expresses the confidence that the new US administration will, as stated by President Obama, give priority attention to this issue. The US special representative for the region will play an important role for the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue and have Kashmir included in his mandate."
I would also like to thank the prime minister, the minister of state for foreign affairs, Minister for Information Sherry Rehman and Syed Khurshid Shah for their assistance in the consensus process.
The above statement clearly showed that the political leadership of Pakistan was cognisant of the fact that India was trying to block a special envoy for Kashmir and prevent it from being included in Holbrooke's mandate. And thus the political leadership was putting parliament's weight behind the government in order to get Kashmir status established.
However, once the prime minister had taken off for Davos, a certain minister and a certain top bureaucrat in the Foreign Office attempted to block the resolution on technical grounds and tried to change the wording. The wording proposed by the bureaucrat was: "This house underscores the importance of a peaceful and just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. We expect the international community to play its due role in the early resolution of this longstanding dispute. And in this context, expresses confidence that the new US administration will as stated by President Obama give priority to this issue." Clearly this was a watered down version. I was told that it was either going to be these words or no resolution was acceptable to the government. The rules that were thrown at me were that a private member needed to send resolution one week in advance. I agree but clearly this was not just from me; in fact, this was from a spectrum of the political leadership and thus the rules could be followed as per Rule 58(3) which said that the speaker "may allow to move a resolution of an urgent nature". After all, the consensus resolutions moved by the government had previously been allowed under similar circumstances without a week's notice.
This entire episode proves that on one side is the political will of pursuing a certain, dignified foreign policy and on the other side is an ego which says parliament, or especially the opposition, should not be allowed to lead on foreign policy. Either way, the parliament can only be supreme if parliamentarians versus bureaucrats decide policy. I am convinced that had the prime minister been in the country and in the house we would have succeeded with the correctly worded resolution. I also wish to bring on record the fact that resolutions signed by unanimous political will are often not followed by the government in letter and spirit. However, this resolution would have been different since it was giving the will of the political leadership on an action needed by the US.
To prove its sincerity to the Kashmir cause, the government should demand a special envoy for Kashmir and increase Holbrooke's mandate to include Kashmir and India. However, if the government doesn't press for the same despite political backing of senior political leaders it is clear that the government is not accepting parliament's supremacy.
The writer is a PML-Q MNA. Marvi - Memon
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Marvi Memon
The supremacy of parliament issue can only be resolved through political will and for that politicians need to make a supreme effort. I would like to narrate an example of how politicians and parliamentarians from Jan 26 to Jan 30 did make an effort and yet bureaucracy scuttled the effort.
On Monday, Jan 26, I presented a resolution for signature of senior political leadership of Pakistan which was worded: "This house resolves to ask US President Obama to send a US envoy on Kashmir or to include Kashmir's resolution in the mandate of the US envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan." I had the support of my party leadership and MNA Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, along with MNA G B Meher and MNA Attiya Innayatullah, signed it. The other senior political leaders to sign the resolution were firstly MNA Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the JUI-F, MNA Syed Khurshid Shah of the PPP, MNA Asfandyar Wali Khan of the ANP, MNA Chaudhry Nisar Khan of the PML-N and MNA Sherpao of the PPP-S. Later FATA signed this version too. The MQM had certain reservations so they signed the following which got us the unanimous support needed to pass the resolution for which I am grateful: "This house underscores the importance of the peaceful and just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. And in this context expresses the confidence that the new US administration will, as stated by President Obama, give priority attention to this issue. The US special representative for the region will play an important role for the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue and have Kashmir included in his mandate."
I would also like to thank the prime minister, the minister of state for foreign affairs, Minister for Information Sherry Rehman and Syed Khurshid Shah for their assistance in the consensus process.
The above statement clearly showed that the political leadership of Pakistan was cognisant of the fact that India was trying to block a special envoy for Kashmir and prevent it from being included in Holbrooke's mandate. And thus the political leadership was putting parliament's weight behind the government in order to get Kashmir status established.
However, once the prime minister had taken off for Davos, a certain minister and a certain top bureaucrat in the Foreign Office attempted to block the resolution on technical grounds and tried to change the wording. The wording proposed by the bureaucrat was: "This house underscores the importance of a peaceful and just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. We expect the international community to play its due role in the early resolution of this longstanding dispute. And in this context, expresses confidence that the new US administration will as stated by President Obama give priority to this issue." Clearly this was a watered down version. I was told that it was either going to be these words or no resolution was acceptable to the government. The rules that were thrown at me were that a private member needed to send resolution one week in advance. I agree but clearly this was not just from me; in fact, this was from a spectrum of the political leadership and thus the rules could be followed as per Rule 58(3) which said that the speaker "may allow to move a resolution of an urgent nature". After all, the consensus resolutions moved by the government had previously been allowed under similar circumstances without a week's notice.
This entire episode proves that on one side is the political will of pursuing a certain, dignified foreign policy and on the other side is an ego which says parliament, or especially the opposition, should not be allowed to lead on foreign policy. Either way, the parliament can only be supreme if parliamentarians versus bureaucrats decide policy. I am convinced that had the prime minister been in the country and in the house we would have succeeded with the correctly worded resolution. I also wish to bring on record the fact that resolutions signed by unanimous political will are often not followed by the government in letter and spirit. However, this resolution would have been different since it was giving the will of the political leadership on an action needed by the US.
To prove its sincerity to the Kashmir cause, the government should demand a special envoy for Kashmir and increase Holbrooke's mandate to include Kashmir and India. However, if the government doesn't press for the same despite political backing of senior political leaders it is clear that the government is not accepting parliament's supremacy.
The writer is a PML-Q MNA. Marvi - Memon
