Do we need a new constitution?

Let's see who wants and who opposes a new basic law. Large number of individuals, groups and parties think that without a new constitution Pakistan's problems will go from bad to worse. Pakistan now stands in peril with a bad constitution. All Pushtoon, Sindhi and Baloch nationalists want a new constitution; many prominent commentators have advocated a new organic law. It must be admitted that most of these are outside the charmed circle of power.

Those who oppose the idea include most of the feudals -- who always tend to support all dictators and are solidly for retaining the 1973 constitution as it stands today. The big business is mostly for it. The armed forces too are no changers. The Q League opposes a new supreme law. Many successful lawyers are also working in the service of conservatives.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Some think drafting a new constitution is a dangerous task. Why? Because those who prosper in the present dispensation want no change. All those whose lives are beset with myriad difficulties -- because of unemployment, high prices, and lack of social amenities and for want of opportunities for alternative politics -- want a change. The disadvantaged see 1973 constitution to be no real improvement on previous ones. It also provided a fig leaf for military dictators to enjoy ultimate power and permits social and political elites to make more personal gains. Factually Pakistan has been looted by its social and economic elites; the common man has been at the losing end all along. No wonder if the elites are for preserving the present constitution as do the rulers.

Pakistanis have agitated for democracy several times. Ignoring East Pakistan's movements, the 1964 election campaign by peacetime Field Marshal against Miss Fatima Jinnah became a pro-democracy mass movement, though only 80,000 persons were to vote who favoured Ayub Khan. The second major movement erupted in 1968 against the Field Marshal's dictatorship and brought him down, though another general snatched victory from the people. Third major movement took place in March 1977 that brought down the Bhutto government -- again for the benefit of Gen. Ziaul Haq. Zia went on to bloodily suppress the fourth popular agitation by MRD that had remained confined to one province. Thereafter people became far too dejected and apathetic; they remain pessimistic and alienated. ARD and MMA are talking of agitations soon; let's see what happens.

Writing a new constitution is not an academic exercise. A constitution reflects the social, political and economic purposes of those who frame it. All constitutions so far have provided cover to powerful elites who were the rulers. Pakistanis have had much travail in constitution making because people's conscious pressure was absent.

Pakistan was born a parliamentary democracy. Muslim League had mid-wifed it. But the League was a different thing in its two zones. East Bengalis did not have elites such as in West Pakistan and wanted simple democracy. In West Pakistan, almost all elected deputies belonged to landed aristocracy with no tradition of opposing governments; they always deferred to bureaucracy for selfish ends. Faced with the prospect of being ruled by Bengalis -- who had abolished landlordism without compensation in their own province -- WP grandees accepted higher bureaucracy's leadership to deny Bengalis the power to harm them.

Thus emerged the bureaucratic coterie around Ghulam Muhammad, prominent members of which were Col. Iskandar Mirza and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali. Secret of its power was the rumour that Iskandar Mirza carried Pakistan army in his pocket; Gen. Ayub owed him gratitude. After a decade of manipulating the political class, bureaucracy lost out to Ayub who, with American collusion, maneuvered Mirza to abrogate the constitution and appoint him Martial Law Chief.

Initial political discourse in late 1940s concerned three cliches: ruling Muslim League relied on Muslim nationalism and an amorphous Islam. The Bengali contingent demanded political democracy and economic development. The third slogan that later arose was about creating a uniquely Islamic State -- raised by Jamaate Islami that later attracted other religious groups. The reality however was a tug of war between the social elites of West Pakistan and the Bengali majority in the Constituent Assembly.

First two constitution-making efforts were unsuccessful and the third one nearly succeeded. As soon as success approached, Ghulam Muhammad sacked the Constituent Assembly whose creature he was -- to wide acclaim by West Pakistani elite and press. After ruling as a civilian dictator for over a year, he was persuaded to call another Assembly which did pass a constitution, the 1956 one, based on Bengalis foregoing their majority status.

The constitution that Pakistan had inherited and the one made in 1956 served as covers for the power and influence of the top men (later the army chief wrote his own). The latter sacked the whole political lot and ruled as a dictator for 11 years. The point is that Ayub Khan showed that constitutions can be killed and a new one written if you have the power. Pakistan experienced democracy for first few years while it has lived under a constitution-covered dictatorship ever since.

The 1973 statute was billed as closing the chapter of military rule. But that was not to be. First intolerant ZA Bhutto behaved autocratically, barely keeping the facade of democracy intact. But General Ziaul Haq again showed that he could always tear up a constitution or put it on the shelf. Choosing the latter device, he ruled for 11 years. After him came 11 years of military-guided democracy in which five prime ministers were shown the door at the president's whim. After 1999 we are back in an openly military-controlled democracy -- all under the 1973 constitution.

True, no constitution ensured effective human rights to common people or occasioned economic development that could change their economic fortunes. For 55 years Pakistan has been ruled by dictators who pursued a development that enriched the top 15 per cent of the population. For the rich, Pakistan is shining. Fate of bottom 40 per cent is poverty. The rest of the lot makes the two ends meet with difficulty.

The question is who should prevail: the conservatives who want no change or the reformists who want a new constitution for desired changes. The change sought by reformists is to make Pakistan both an ordinary representative democracy and a federation in which the units or states are the real government that expands the economy for the benefit of the bottom 70 per cent and the centre is confined to performing agreed common tasks. The choice is urgent.

Attitudes among opposition parties on this question vary. PML(N) seems to abhor the idea of a new organic law; on this question, government and opposition do not differ. Both have conservative outlook and are opposed by those who hate the strong centre and favour radical social and economic policies.

As for PPP, it too would oppose a new constitution because the party is today as conservative a force as PML(Q) is; it is unlikely to have any different social and economic policies than what Musharraf is pursuing. Other regional parties want more provincial autonomy; therefore will opt for a new basic law. Small groups are too many and too small to matter.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.