The founder of the party

We have given some of the glimpses of the perception as it prevails within the country and abroad. This is what has compelled the President to dissolve the assemblies under Article 58(2)(b). But it is worthwhile to reflect on the submission we are making to present the political scene of the country in its true colours.

The Peoples Party is claiming to be the champion of parliamentary democracy. But what is the record? The founder of the party late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto came into politics under the tutelage of the arch bureaucrat and dictator, Sikandar Mirza, who tore asunder the consensus constitution of 1956. Very soon, Bhutto changed his loyalties to Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan. For eight years, he served him and eventually became his chief election agent against Mohtarama Fatima Jinnah, the democratic challenger. His role was important in the fall of the Ayub regime and the inauguration of the second martial law by Gen. Yahya Khan. Bhutto was not only an adviser to the new dictator but also acted as his foreign minister and accomplice in the dismemberment of the state that the Quaid had established. He played a very decisive role in the separation of East Pakistan particularly by refusing to accept 1970 electoral results, as he was not prepared to hand over the power to the majority party — Awami League. He raised the slogan of idhar ham udhar tum and obstructed the holding of the National Assembly’s session. After the fall of East Pakistan, despite getting around 36 percent of the votes in West Pakistan he maneuvered to get himself appointed as civilian chief martial law administrator, a position he continued until interim constitution was adopted. Under one-man constitution, he established the presidential form of government. When in the 1973 constitution he had to accept parliamentary system he so distorted it by centralizing powers that the nation had a "prime-ministerial form of government". Moreover, the day the constitution was adopted, he resorted to the emergency powers by suspending fundamental rights. It is misnomer to call this a parliamentary form of government. Parliament has never been supreme and the judiciary was never allowed to become independent of the executive. His psychology can be read in an anecdote given by Gen. Gul Hasan in his autobiography:

"Whenever he could, the Quaid-e-Azam, accompanied by Miss Jinnah, would drive out to Malir in the evening. This was his only relaxation. I always took a spare car, in which Inspector (later SP) FD Hansotia of the police rode behind us. He was permanently assigned to protect the Quaid-e-Azam. There was no other escort. It seems strange when I compare those days with what happens now, when the escort of any dignitary is as menacing as the advance guard of an armoured division, if not more dangerous. On one of these drives, the rail crossing at Malir was shut and our car stopped. I looked around and saw that the train was some distance away, so I went to the gatekeeper and asked him to let us go through, of course telling him who was in the car. He obliged, I returned to my seat next to the driver, Aziz, and told him to move on. He answered that the Quaid-e-Azam had told him to stay put. Just then the Governor-General told me to go and tell the gatekeeper to close the gate. I did as I was bid and resumed my seat. He then said, ‘Gul, do you know why I told the driver not to move the car?’ I replied, ‘No sir’. He said the reason was simple: ‘If I do not obey the law, how should I expect others to do so?’ This brief statement affected me greately. Though the Head of State, he considered himself as bound by law as any other citizen. Such a demonstration is only possible by men who are truly great.

Years later, I was driving with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the Chinese Ambassador’s residence for dinner, a day prior to our trip to Beijing in 1971. Bhutto had won the elections in West Pakistan and Yahya Khan deputed him to go to China as the head of a delegation of which I was a member. He asked me to tell him what had impressed me most during my stay with the Quaid-e-Azam. I told him this story. Just then, the driver stopped the car as one of the traffic lights on Murree Road turned red. Having heard me seconds before, he told the driver, ‘Drive on, no one can stop me!’ This was the difference. The one who had given us Pakistan was law-abiding; the other, who held no office then, was above the law! And he would, when he assumed office, be more disdainful of any such curbs." (Memoirs, by Lt. General Gul Hasan, Oxford, Karachi, 1993, pp. 75-76).

So much about the man who founded the PPP, led it and gave it its distinct character and ethos. There is not a shadow of the democratic spirit in his life, behaviour of the family, the organization and conduct of the party.

Let us also look to the vision of the so-called parliamentary system that Bhutto cherished. About the original 1973 constitution that he and his party gave to the country as their greatest gift, let us see what his own right-hand men and law minister Mahmud Ali Qasuri has to say:

"Instead of a full fledged democracy and a parliamentary government, we are, in the draft Constitution, provided with a government wherein the prime minister will have every opportunity of becoming a dictator. Once a person has secured his election as a prime minister, he can act and continue to act in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the Members of Parliament or even the overwhelming majority of the members of his own party. This is not parliamentary government but is prime minister’s chief minister’s dictatorship. It is interesting to note that official designation of both Hitler and Mussolini corresponded to prime minister. I sincerely hope that we will avoid the pitfalls that befell their countries.

"The British monarch is not bound to accept in all cases the prime minister’s request for dissolution of the House of Commons. Constitutional writers agree that in certain circumstances a monarch would be entitled to refuse such a request. The President of Pakistan will have no such option and a leader of the legislature who may, by his own follies have lost the confidence of the House and even of his own party could compel the House and his party into submission by threats of dissolution..."

"The President proposed in the Constitution is a mere burden upon the exchequer and apparently performs no useful function except of denying to the prime minister a 21-gun salute. The concentration of too much of power in the hands of any one man has its own risks and may prejudice the growth of parliamentary government in Pakistan".

Another perceptive analyst of Pakistan’s political history, Prof. Khalid Sayeed, in his study Politics in Pakistan; the Nature and Direction of Change (Special Studies, New York, 1980) describes the main features of the house that Bhutto built:

"The Constitution of 1973, made it crystal clear that the kingpin of the entire governmental structure, whether it concerns decision-making in the central government or whether it is related to the matters vis-a-vis provincial governments, was the prime minister. It was in the matter of dominance of the Prime Minister vis-a-vis the National Assembly who were chosen representatives of the people, that the Constitution of 1973 departed fundamentally from the parliamentary norms. No other provisions made the position of the prime minister impregnable against almost every eventuality that a parliamentary government was subject to as that which related to the motion of no confidence in the prime minister. It was clearly stipulated in the constitution, Article 96(5) that for a period of 10 years, from the commencement of the constitution or from the holding of a second general election to the National Assembly which ever occurred later.

"The vote of a member elected to the National Assembly as a candidate or nominee of a political party, cast in support of a resolution for a vote of no confidence, shall be disregarded, if the majority of the members of that political party in the National Assembly has asked its voters against the passing of such a resolution."

"This meant that as long as the prime minister enjoyed the support of the majority of the members of the Pakistan People Party in the National Assembly, he could not be ousted if a minority of the PPP members in the National Assembly decided to support a motion of no confidence. Similarly, if another party supported the prime minister, its minority members could not support a motion of no confidence against the prime minister because this would be considered as doing against the wishes of the majority of that party, etc. etc.

This clearly indicates that the prime minister could neither been controlled by the president nor challenged by the Assembly. The latter feature was extraordinary because the essence of the parliamentary government was that the prime minister was both accountable to and removable by the Assembly. As suggested earlier the Government of Pakistan under Ayub was that of the president, by the president and for the President. Could it be said that in the Bhutto regime, the prime minister’s position was equally dominant."

That is how it all began. Once the constitution was adopted and supposed to have been enforced, emergency provisions were involved and the fundamental rights suspended. Then five of the seven amendments made in the constitution by brute party support aimed at crippling whatever powers were given to the judiciary. With these amendments the principle of independence of the judiciary was withheld. For all practical purposes, judiciary was subordinated to the executive. That is how the supremacy of the prime minister was established on every organ of the state, parliament, the executive branch and judiciary. By any stretch of imagination, this system of personalized authority could not be called parliamentary democracy — it was government by the prime minister, of the prime minister and for the prime minister.

Family based organistion

Second, the PPP from day one has acted as a family-based organization and not as a real parliamentary political party. There have never been any elections within the party during the last three decades neither formal registered membership. From top to bottom, all office bearers are nominated by the chairman. The leadership has been confined to the family as a right. So much so, the principle of inheritance has been introduced in politics. Consequently, the party has been reduced to a family fiefdom. When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto saw the end of his career approaching, he nominated his wife to be the chair-person. Then his wife nominated her daughter as co-chairperson. When the daughter tasted power, she got rid of her mother whose sympathy shifted to her son, the prime minister’s brother, Murtaza Bhutto. With the death of Murtaza Bhutto, the prime minister has shown the true side of her nature when she declared in her chehlum speech that she, her mother and her sister were the only heirs to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. If the Iranian Nusrat Bhutto could become part of the family through marriage why the Lebanese Ghinva Bhutto cannot become part of the family by marriage to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s son Murtaza Bhutto? Personalized politics has reached a stage when Murtaza’s son and daughter have been disowned as part of the family. It may also be recalled that Nusrat Bhutto is reported to have said that it is the inherent right of the Bhuttos to rule. Is this democracy or justification for a new hereditary monarchy? When the Quaid-i-Azam became governor-general, he resigned from the presidentship of the Muslim League. He did not manoeuvre to bring in Mohtarama Fatima Jinnah as president of the Muslim League. Miss Fatima Jinnah came into politics when the political leadership of the country requested her to challenge the dictatorship of Ayub Khan whom Bhutto was supporting. Maulana Maudoodi relinquished the leadership of the Jama`at but it did not go to his sons; instead, the Jama`at elected Mian Tufail Muhammad as its leader who served for 15 years. On his resignation due to health reasons, nobody thought of his son to become leader of the Jama`at. Instead, through direct elections the Jama`at elected Qazi Hussain Ahmed as its amir. But, the Peoples Party has its own standards. Its leadership has no concept of a democratic leadership accountable to the members and the people. The whole system runs on nominations and personal likes and dislikes. This is sheer despotism, a system which runs around the Bhuttos — in fact, one woman only. It has principles and practices which are foreign to modern democracy.

The two faces of PPP

Third, a word about their claim of coming to power through democratic means, and enjoying a majority mandate. There is no doubt now, that from 1988 until 1994 the PPP has followed two strategies: one in the field of popular agitation and electoral politics and the other of linkages and conspiratoral politics and alliance with vested interests in the army, bureaucracy and the external forces who pull all the strings in Third-World countries. In 1986 before coming back to Pakistan, she went to Washington to seek the blessings of her patrons there. People like Stephen Solarz and Mark Seigal, who have always been anti-Pakistan, pro-India and pro-Israel were her links with the American establishment. Perhaps a short excerpt from her autobiography, Daughter of the East (London, Hamish Hamilton, 1988), will be helpful in understanding her links in the West:

"In Washington I had meetings with Senator Pell, Senator Kennedy and Congressman Stephen Solarz, the bright, energetic Representative who had monitored the recent elections in the Philippines which brought Corazon Aquino democratically into office and who had become a personal friend of mine. They were very supportive of my return to Pakistan. They, too, were pressing for free elections and the restoration of human rights to Pakistan and promised to monitor the situation there closely following my return. Mark Siegel, a political consultant whom I had met on my visit to Washington in 1984, was also very helpful, persuading elected officials and other influential people to write to Pakistani officials, warning them of grave consequences if I were mistreated. As an added precaution, Mark bought me a bullet-proof vest. (P. 273)

PPP has never been able to get majority of votes in Pakistan in the elections held in 1970, 1988, 1990 and 1993. Their voting strength has been between 36 and 38 percent and this too not on the basis of the party but the vested groups, biradaries, zamindars and different kinds of alliances. Whether it was in 1988 or 1993, PPP was mever in a position to form government on the basis of its own strength. Coalition governments were formed on both occasions. But the real forces behind the coalition were bureaucracy, army and the United States. PPP leadership had indirect alliance with the military regimes of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan. Gen. Zia-ul Haq was brought up by them, but he chose his own path, hence the confrontation, yet there were some direct and many indirect linkages throughout this period. After Zia in 1988 it was Gen. Aslam Beg, the Chief of the Army Staff, and the Chief of the Military Intelligence Gen. Asad Durrani, who played an important role in bringing her to power. Benazir paid back by publicly offering tribute to the army’s role in the so-called restoration of democracy. Even Tamgha-e-Jamhooriyat was given to the army. In 1992-93, there was a clear collusion with Gen. Asif Nawaz and Gen. Abdul Waheed. The fall of the Nawaz Sharif regime, the coming of Dr. Moin Qureshi as caretaker prime minister and then induction of Benazir in 1993 are as much a part of the Roman Palace conspiracies, as are the electoral tamasha. Is it not a fact that some of the important people in different Zia regimes have also been close associates and advisers in Benazir regime? Those who were confidants of President Ghulam Ishaq Khan during the Nawaz Sharif regime, even those who were supposed to be responsible for the so-called accountability of the PPP leadership, also turned out to be the chief advisers of Benazir. They have continued to play their role even after the removal of Ghulam Ishaq Khan as president. Is it not a fact that Asif Zardari was inducted in Mazari’s caretaker government? Is it not a fact that Dr. Moin Qureshi was invited with the concurrence of Benazir Bhutto? Is it not a fact that even in the Presidential elections of 1993 the then Chief of Army Staff played an important role to the benefit of Ms Bhutto? Is it not a fact that Benazir regime which curses and condemns Gen. Zia and his colleagues day-in and day-out has within her party, parliamentary party, cabinet, even kitchen cabinet a number of those individuals who served with Zia as his ministers and lieutenants? We do not want to name names, but everyone knows how Zia’s political kith and kin are on the right and left of Benazir Bhutto, all anti-Zia rhetoric notwithstanding. What credential Benazir has in criticizing the military regimes, with that kind of antecedents?

Their treatment of Parliament

Fourth, let us see what has been the actual position of parliament under the present regime. How has she treated the institution of parliament? The prime minister used to appear in the National Assembly only sparingly and has not cared to attend the Senate for even half an hour during the last three years. Legislation in the country is by ordinances. During the last three years, some 228 ordinances have been imposed from the above, only about two dozens pieces of formal legislation introduced in both the houses. Over two dozen ordinances have been introduced three to four times against the implicit demand of the constitution and explicit verdict of the Supreme Court. The National Assembly and the Senate do not discuss major national issues. Even important international treaties and agreements like NPT, CTBT and repatriation treaties are never presented in parliament for discussion or ratification. Key policy issues, domestic and international are not debated and policies formulated in the light of parliamentary debates. Question hour is not faced by the prime minister. The ministers do not take it seriously and often make a mockery of it. Throughout the world parliament is always in session except two major periods of summer and winter vacations. In our country, there is no regular schedule of Senate, National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies.

A recent report about the working of the National Assembly between October, 1995 and September, 1996 reveals that during the whole year with 11 sessions, actual time the assembly was in session was ONLY 374 HOURS, with a cost of Rs. 324,000 per hour. Of the 217 legislators, only 95 participated in various debates while the remaining 122 never uttered a word in the assembly. Throughout the year, the total time the prime minister (Benazir Bhutto) spoke was 210 minutes. During this period, the opposition had to resort to walk-out for 25 times — protesting against the government’s highhandedness. The ministers responded to only 114 call-attention notices during the year while 1,099 notices expired unattended. (The News, November 19, 1996).

The assurances given in the house are rarely fulfilled. The participation from the government side is so low that time and again the session had to be adjourned for lack of quorum. Rulings of the chairman Senate and speaker National Assembly are not respected. Members are bribed and appeased through ministerships, adviserships, parliamentary secretaryships, foreign trips, development funds, plots and other favours. The committee system is limping and no effort is being made to make the executive accountable before the parliamentary committees. The chairmen of the parliamentary committees have no offices and no legislative staff, yet they are provided houses in Islamabad and chauffer driven cars, even though the committees do not meet for more than 25-30 days in a year. MNAs have shown greater interest in enhancing their own emoluments, perks, foreign trips, medical expenses particularly treatments abroad at the cost of the national exchequer and hardly any real interest in legislation, policy-making, building accountability of the executive and fulfilling their real constitutional responsibilities.

Horse trading and lotacracy

Fifth, the most obnoxious issue affecting the legitimacy of parliament and the parliamentarians relates to horse-trading and lotacracy. In fact, while courts had expressed reservations about accepting corruption as a sufficient reason for dissolution, at least two of the judges in Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim Vs. Federation of Pakistan case, have observed that horse-trading could be one of the valid reasons for dissolution. Justice Shafi-ur-Rehman, in his main judgment observes:

"An elected representative who defects his professed cause, his electorate, his party, his mandate, destroys his own representative character. He cannot on the mandated constitutional prescription participate in the exercise of state power and authority. Even by purely secular standards carrying on of the government in the face of such defections, and on the basis of such defections, is considered to be nothing but "mockery of the democratic constitutional process". The other enumerated evils contained in first ground precede, accompany or follow the defection. That there had been taking defections has not been seriously disputed, nor the fact that the defectors were quite often rewarded with posts and prizes. As regards the second ground, we find sufficient correspondence on record to indicate that persistent requests were made by the provinces for making functional the constitutional institutions like council of common Interests, National Finance Commission with a view to sort out disputes over claims and policy matters concerning the federation and the federating units as such. In spite of the intercession of the president, no heed was paid, constitutional obligations were not discharged thereby jeopardizing the very existence and sustenance of the federation.

It is true that some of the grounds like (c), c (ii) and e (iii) may not have been independently sufficient to warrant such an action. they can, however, be invoked, referred to and made use of along with grounds more relevant like (a) and (b) which by themselves are sufficient to justify the action taken.

Hence, there is no case on merits for grant of leave to appeal which is hereby refused." (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 656 pp. 666-667)

Justice Rustom S. Sidhwa observes in his judgment:

"But then the question again arises, whether this pernicious evil has contributed to the failure of the constitutional machinery. As stated earlier, the coalition government was somewhat peculiarly placed in view of the open confrontation existing between itself and the combined opposition and attempts made by both to dislodge each other contributed to defection and "horse-trading" on an uninterrupted scale, with each side trying to grab members of the other and offering ministerial or other posts and rewards in the centre or in the provinces to some of the defectees. The grant of high offices, such as of ministers, ministers of state, etc., to members of the Opposition camp showed that they were for reward. No parliamentary practice permits defection or "horse-trading". The evil is manifest where tenuous coalitions are in the seat of power. To maintain power, defections from the opposition parties are sought against high rewards and offer of ministerships. Likewise, the same practice is adopted by the Opposition to break the ruling coalition. The adoption of this evil practice only lays bare the position of a coalition party that its functional ability to rule, through the numerical strength of its members, is vulnerable, and that if the opponents were to succeed by the same practice, they would be out of power. This ground can reasonably be treated as reflection of serious functional dislocation of a coalition government and since this is a basic situation for which an assembly can be dissolved as stated in para 19 above, this ground I would treat as justifying the opinion which the president did even to justify dissolution". (pp. 697-8)

Benazir government has totally failed to improve upon its earlier record on this count. There has been horse-trading from day one. The way the provincial government in the Frontier province was removed and an artificial majority was created by horse-trading and manipulation is a classical example of the rape of democracy in the parliamentary system. The same story was repeated in Punjab under the cover of emergency and governor’s direct intervention in matters which were not his constitutional domain. Even today (November 3, 1996) there are 105 ministers, advisers, assistants and parliamentary secretaries in Punjab costing over Rs 670 million a year to the national exchequer. Now these very privileged persons are being herded in Islamabad, Muzaffarabad, Peshawar and Sawat as cattle only to control and manipulate in view of the expected vote of confidence in the Punjab Assembly as a result of the restoration of the Wattoo chief ministership.

Commenting on this latest outrage The News, November 2, 1996, which otherwise has been generally sympathetic to the Bhutto regime, editorialized:

"There are credible reports of massive offers being made to MPAs with feeble faiths to change their minds and their political loyalties. Backroom deals negotiated by middle-men are taken place and the task of getting MPAs is being given to trusted trouble-shooters who have specific deadlines to meet. This exercise is taking place against the backdrop of the proceedings of this particular case, during which much was said about the curse of horse-trading and how debilitating its effects are on the health of democracy.

Whether all of this wheeling and dealing, buying and selling, trading and bartering would end or get more feverish depends on what sort of verdict is given. In case Mr. Wattoo is restored, all principles of political morality, already in ribbons in Punjab, will be mauled to win the mad numbers game that would follow. But if it is otherwise the activity will end, or perhaps be postponed, because Mr. Wattoo might move the Supreme Court, his last resort.

Things as they stand now are a sad commentary on our political culture and the behaviour of those who shape it."

No respect for public money

Last but not least corruption is rampant to an unprecedented extent. There is no respect for sanctity of public money. In a country where ordinary citizens are not in a position to buy two times meal a day and even ordinary medicines, the members of parliament and senior bureaucrats are sent for treatment abroad each costing million of rupees. Foreign trips are the most favourite pass time of present prime minister and her supporters in the assemblies. Mr. Z.A. Bhutto began the practice of taking huge delegations of more than 60 to 70 people and his daughter continues with it unchecked costing the exchequer millions and millions of rupees, as well as bringing a bad name to Pakistan. The prime minister has herself said that 10 percent of the bank defaulters belong to the national and the provincial assemblies. If to this list we add the names of relatives and friends of the politicians, it would increase three fold. If the list of defaulters of Agricultural Development Bank is included, the proportion may rise to over 40%. The number of plots given to members of parliament during Mr. Bhutto regime in the 70’s, the Zia regime, followed by the Junejo regime, the Benazir Bhutto regime, the Nawaz Sharif regime and the current Bhutto regime, almost 80% of the members would turn out to be the beneficiaries of this national loot. Similar has been the case in provinces. Huge development funds have been made available to the members of the government party in the national and provincial assemblies, yet another source of burgeoning corruption. Add to that the quantum of appointments, of transfers, of other administrative and economic benefits and the picture that emerges is really bleak and disgusting. It is a sad situation that people who had been entrusted with power and authority in this country have by and large failed to serve the country. They have tried to serve their own interests. If this is the picture that emerges, it is not the critics who are to be blamed. The blame lies with the political leadership, who were voted to the august houses of national and provincial assemblies but they have betrayed the trust reposed in them. It is they who have brought bad name to these institutions so much so that Pakistan is described as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Corruption has become a way of life in this poor country and destroyed its moral fibre as well as its economic potential.

This is the verdict of the mirror and crushing the mirror is not the answer! The answer lies in setting the house in order. Go back to the people to seek a fresh mandate. Reform the electoral system so that the criteria of leadership provided in the constitution in articles 62 and 63 is scrupulously implemented. I have not discussed in this presentation the other dimensions of the crises, particularly the havoc caused to the economy, the damage done to the ideology of the country, the crusade against our cultural values and traditions of our society, the violence done to the freedom of information and misuse of media, particularly the electronic, and the total isolation of Pakistan in the international field affecting our stand on Kashmir, Afghanistan, Palestine, the NPT, the CTBT, and the devaluation of our position in the so-called New World Order, making us a satellite of America. The Bhutto regime had failed on all these counts as well. That is why its continuation in power would have been a tragedy of colossal magnitude. Dismissal of this government was indispensable to save Pakistan from further disaster. We had reached the end of the precipice. But the dissolution of the assemblies can be helpful in achieving the objectives of protecting Pakistan only if the next challenge is met positively. That challenge lies in bringing up an upright middle class leadership with vision, commitment and competence. The answer lies in implementing the constitution and not just paying lip-service to it.