HOW did the idea of the Senate come into being? The straightforward answer is that it was established under the Constitution of 1973. That is correct, but what historical experience led our elders to conceive of an upper house? The usual answer is that it was intended to protect the political and economic interests of provinces, both large and small. This, too, is correct, but it does not tell the whole story. I am grateful to the young researcher Dr Dilawar Hussain, who prompted me to look at the question from another perspective. Before explaining what I learned from his research, let me say a few words about him. I would not have known him had we not met one afternoon a few months ago.
He called to request a meeting. Despite having no prior acquaintance or introduction, we managed to arrange one. People today are often reluctant to meet strangers, let alone invite them home. However, Dilawar spoke with such courtesy that, instead of feeling apprehensive, I invited him over. I learned that he teaches at the National University of Modern Languages (NUML). Our young people sometimes assume that a little education and a few published articles place them above others. Dilawar, however, was different: gentle, unassuming and enthusiastic, yet mature and serious. I enjoyed our conversation. He believed that the distortions in our educational curriculum’s presentation of history needed to be exposed. I encouraged him to proceed. He explained that he envisioned a long series of articles but that Dawn, which he had approached, was unwilling to publish more than one or two. I suggested that he write them one at a time rather than seek a commitment for the entire series. If the writing had substance, the newspaper would eventually want to publish it. He nodded thoughtfully, seemingly persuaded. What became of that series is another story.
On his next visit, he brought a book titled The Senate of Pakistan and Regional Representation. It turned out to be his PhD dissertation, published by an American institution. Like most academic research, the book is rigorous and densely referenced. Yet it also offers much to the general reader, particularly on the question of how the Senate became part of the 1973 Constitution. Dr Dilawar’s research identifies the fundamental cause as the demographic imbalance among Pakistan’s constituent units and the apprehensions and disagreements arising from it.
After independence, constitution-making brought the question of balance between East and West Pakistan to the forefront. The resulting bitterness delayed the Constitution, which might otherwise have been completed within the country’s first few years. The imposition of martial law in 1953 further damaged the process. Although this martial law is generally associated with the Khatm-e-Nabuwwat movement, an earlier source of tension was the struggle between East and West Pakistan over their respective shares of power, amplified by the contemporary press. The religious movement temporarily overshadowed this issue, but the underlying imbalance remained a source of political instability.
According to Dr Dilawar, the 1956 Constitution attempted to resolve the problem through an artificial formula of parity. Because this arrangement was neither natural nor equitable, it could not endure. Ultimately, East Pakistan separated. After its separation, constitution-makers faced a fundamental question: how could provincial interests be protected while ensuring their equitable participation in the state? The Senate was conceived as an answer.
How effective has the Senate been as a House of Federation? Dr Dilawar offers an interesting explanation: much depends on the personality of its chairman. A strong and dynamic chairman can make the institution more active, as happened under Raza Rabbani. The same applies, to some extent, to its members. His research suggests that senators from smaller provinces and smaller political parties tend to be more active than those from Punjab or the ruling party.
Has the Senate succeeded in protecting provincial rights? The answer is not straightforward. The upper house undoubtedly helps maintain a balance between large and small provinces, but it has not fully achieved its intended purpose. Senators often await their party leadership’s signals before expressing opinions or making decisions. Since they depend on their parties for tickets and are not directly elected by the public, their freedom to act independently is limited. Dr Dilawar also points to inadequate training and a lack of essential staff.
What can be done to overcome these obstacles? One proposed solution is direct elections, which could reduce senators’ dependence on party leadership. Dr Dilawar offers another example from Germany, where parliamentary committees provide an institutional link between the federal parliament and provincial assemblies. When legislation affecting provincial interests is under consideration, these committees become active, reducing the likelihood of unilateral decisions. Does this research establish that Pakistan’s Senate is a successful institution, or does its performance raise serious questions? A considered answer requires a careful reading of the book. Nevertheless, one point deserves emphasis: this is the first research book devoted specifically to Pakistan’s Senate. Earlier books with the word Parliament in their titles generally devoted only two or three pages to the Senate.
—This writer is former advisor to President, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
