Judgment on President’s two offices

Monday, June 06, 2011 - I wanted to write on this matter soon after some Sindh politicos agitated against LHC judgment and some PPP groups elsewhere joined them, but soon after the judgment some very important events took place such as CIA Operation in Abbotabad, Hillary’s visit to mend the damage this operation did to Pak-US relations, and the terrorist attack on the Mehran Base in Karachi, which were dominating public attention. I had to write about these matters first. Now it is time to correct two erroneous views held in some political circles that LHC decision was President Zardari-specific, and that it is permitted to be the President and at the same time the political head of the ruling party. As a student of political science, having done my Ph D in Political Science in 1955 from a Canadian university, ( Ottawa Universdity) may I say that both these impressions are incorrect. This limitation is not President Zardari specific but would applies to any President of any parliamentary democratic country. What has been considered here in certain political circles as a high court view on President Zardari is in fact a universally accepted principle in any democratic parliamentary system that the office of the President, of any president, of any country having parliamentary democracy, is or should be above political party affiliations, any affiliations whatsoever. He is to be a neutral head, impartial. In any parliamentary system there is a Head of the Government- that is the prime minister- and the Head of the State that is the president. The prime minister is nominated by the ruling political party who forms the government after winning elections. Governments come and go. And there is a head of the state which represents the entire state or country and stays for the entire term for which he is appointed except that he can be removed through impeachment .The President represents all and everyone, the interests of everyone in the state, in the words of our Constitution is the symbol of unity of the Federation – that is of the entire country, which is the meaning of the Federation. In parliamentary system governments come and go, but the State in entirety is the people , it is a permanent entity. One can oppose the Government, that is a democratic right, but opposing the State is treason or rebellion, one does not owe ‘allegiance’ to the government but one owes it to the State. President represents in person the State for the duration he is appointed. The Government can play party politics, follows party programs but the State cannot become co-extensive with a political party. That is democracy, in which there is a distinct dividing line between the Government and the State, or the political party and the entity called the country. The State is for entire people, those who belong to the ruling party, or not or have any political affiliations or none. .

This dividing line disappears only in two systems, totalitarian states and those who followed the Communist system. This distinction between the state and the ruling party was completely disappeared in these two systems. The ruler was above all restrains, except the Party The State and the Party was above all considerations. In the totalitarian states the ruler was Supreme. In Soviet Communist system the Party was supreme. Truth was what served the party, Courts were subordinate to the party, but in democracy, the organs of state have given jurisdictions and over stepping them is unconstitutional. Individuals have rights given to them in the Constitution. The President is for the entire country, not only for his party, and is the symbol of the entire country and is the custodian of the interests of all the citizens or persons in the jurisdiction of the State. If the President becomes synonymous with his political party than he will cease to be the symbol of unity of the federation, a partisan president – not the person who is above any consideration but for the entire country.

In this way, to remain a party head while being President is in fact violation of the oath of the office. The 18th Amendment has made the position of a president who also holds the position of the head of the party, partisan as he manipulates the Parliament or can manipulates the Parliament from outside the Parliament by removing any member of his party from Assembly’s or Senate’s membership . He has supra Parliament and can cancel the mandate given in the elections by having powers to disqualify a sitting member of the parliament . He thus has strings which he can pull sitting outside the Parliament to manipulate the party politics. This has made the Members of the Parliament not MPs or Senators but what were styled under the Communist system “delegates” The Party boss is thus above the electors who voted for the candidate in the elections . This makes the President with the powers of the head of the party a real player on political dynamism. Thus as long as President Zardari is the virtual head of the Party he is NOT a non-partisan President but like the Prime Minister another echelon of political power.. If one looks at the old Soviet system, one would find not even theoretically the Party boss had the powers to withdraw the “delegate’s” membership of what were equivalents of parliaments in the Soviet system..

Perhaps I am ignorant about the number of experts in political science and comparative constitutions in the ruling party. In British Labour Party Harold Lasky was its bran trust, but I do not know whether there is any such expert in PPP who could understand the objections contained in the LHC ruling. May be the finer points of political science have escaped many of their stalwarts being ignorant of these facts. But general impression about PPP is that it is a populist party, and uses the agitational methods and political cult of the erstwhile Soviet Communist Party as its political strategy The important point for the public is no longer the number of “shaheeds” any political party has, like in US the Democrats do not play on the sacfrices of the Kennedys, there is need to look at the current issues as a political scientist and not to divert the topic to the number of “Shaheeds” of democracy the Party has. Shaeed is a religious word not political vocabulary. The play on personality cult that the Soviet Communist Party indulged in is a hackneyed appeal. There should be Intellectual element in considering broader issues of national importance. This is one such issue. The institution of President in proper management over long years to come is vital to the country for healthy democracy.

Pardon me to say that all political parties should now speak of issues and their policies to solve them rather than start parading their version or history of old sins of each other, this is childish to talk of so and so “ran away” to a foreign country, etc. Bring if you can issues-oriented politics before the masses. Who ran away to Saudi Arabia and who to Dubai are old women’s tales. Talk should be on issues of today the masses are facing unless the intention is to shift attention from issues to spicy stories. Personal attacks seems a tactics to avoid debating national issues. Adherence to the Constitution letter and spirit is one such issue and should be faced with logic if one has it on one’s side.