Mamnoon and the „Lascelles Principles‟ S Iftikhar Murshed Sunday, September 08, 2013 From Print Edition

The ways of providence are mysterious. It has unexpectedly raised Mamnoon Hussain, a political lightweight from Karachi, to the pinnacle. Tomorrow he will be sworn in as the twelfth president of Pakistan but, with the passage of the 18th Amendment of the constitution, he will wield no power. Two of his predecessors, Fazal Ilahi Chaudhry and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, were also figurehead presidents – mere sidekicks to the all-powerful prime ministers of their times. Pakistan is a land of a million myths and one of them is the belief that the 1973 constitution established unfettered parliamentary democracy in the country. But closer to the truth is that it was tailored to cater to the ambitions of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In fact it was the 1956 constitution that introduced a genuine parliamentary system, and, after it was abrogated in 1958, the country underwent continuous political convulsions. But despite its flaws, the 1973 constitution has served as the basic law of the land for 40 years and this is reason enough for it to be further strengthened and continuously modified if it is to eventually establish a parliamentary system. But in these four decades it was distorted and disfigured by autocratic presidents and prime ministers. It is these mutilations that the 18th Amendment claims to have rectified. The first lines of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, signed by Senator Raza Rabbani, reads: “The Constitution of 1973 was not implemented in letter and spirit. The democratic system was derailed at different times. The non-democratic regimes which came to power at different times centralised all authority and thus altered the structure of the constitution from a parliamentary form to a quasi-presidential form of government through the 8th and the 17th constitutional amendments...” Last week, at a dinner he hosted for the media, President Asif Ali Zardari said that he would be handing over the baton to his successor with a sense of fulfilment. He had surrendered his powers to parliament and the fortress of democracy had been made impregnable. PPP stalwarts never tire of boasting that their party had restored the 1973 constitution but what they do not readily concede is that the 18th Amendment retains several of the harmful modifications introduced by previous leaders. Constitutional experts are convinced that the basic law enacted in 1973 established a “prime ministerial dictatorship and a highly centralised federation.” They contend that parliamentary democracy is founded on checks and balances. Central to this is a president powerful enough to restrain an autocratic prime minister but yet not so powerful as to be able to subvert the constitution. This means that the prime minister must also have sufficient powers to foil such attempts by the president to abrogate or suspend the basic law of the land. But Bhutto was obsessed with power and motivated by monstrous ambitions. This was what prompted Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri, the chairman of the Constitution Committee and the law minister to resign in October 1972. Kasuri, a recipient of the Stalin Peace Prize who served in the Stockholm War Crimes Tribunal established by Bertrand Russell, was committed to a parliamentary form of government with its attendant checks and balances. He saw through Bhutto‟s game and refused to be a party to it. The constitution that was promulgated the following year vested all powers in the prime minister and

Australia. Gough Whitlam. (3) he could rely on finding another prime minister who could carry on his government. Britain.. with a working majority in the House of Commons. were to violate some basic convention of constitutional behaviour. From this.” Lascelles further explains that “no wise sovereign. (ii) demand information. constitutional experts derive the opinion that the head of state is also empowered to dissolve parliament but without dismissing the prime minister thereby compelling him to seek a new electoral mandate. was convinced that: “Dismissal would be appropriate if a government. the joint select committee of the Australian parliament submitted its „Advisory Report on Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and Presidential Nominations Committee Bill. This structural imbalance. recognise the right of the head of state to: (i) be consulted. can be rectified by modifying the 1973 constitution in accordance with those of the major parliamentary democracies. The author eventually turned out to be none other than Sir Alan Lascelles (1887-1981). for a reasonable period. Eventually. However in England it has not been exercised by the Crown since 1783. This principle was enunciated in a letter from a mysterious „Senex‟ which was published by The Times of London on May 2.” In entrenched parliamentary democracies the most dramatic application of this norm was the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister. (iii) select a prime minister if elections yield a hung parliament. On the question of the dismissal of the prime minister all constitutional authorities are unanimous in their opinion that the head of state in a parliamentary system has such powers. by illegal or unconstitutional administrative action. later. and. and capable of doing its job. 1950. Sir John Kerr. affirm: “It is surely indisputable (and common sense) that a prime minister may ask – not demand – that his sovereign will grant him a dissolution of parliament and that the sovereign. dissolution.reduced the president to a pathetic figurehead.‟ At issue was a determinati on of what powers the president should have in the envisaged republic.‟ as the contents of the letter came to be known. Private Secretary to King George VI and. They are all in conformity with the vast corpus of legal opinion recorded by the world‟s foremost constitutional experts. The „Lascelles Principles. Reason triumphed over emotions. (iv) dissolve parliament.. may refuse to grant this request.” A prime minister whose “request” is rejected has the option to resign and thereby force an election. Queen Elizabeth II. (2) a general election would be detrimental to the national economy. Canada. The acceptance or rejection of such a request is the prerogative of the head of state.would deny a dissolution to his prime minister unless he were satisfied that: (1) the existing parliament was still vital. if he so chooses. by the Governor General. and years were spent in talking through issues under the mechanism of an All-Parties Constitutional Convention. in August 1999. But the ensuing constitutional crisis – the worst the country has ever known – was not allowed to destabilise the system. Professor Geoffrey Marshall (1929-2003). but not demand. It has been cited since then in every major work of constitutional law. on November 11. for instance. Correspondingly. (v) dismiss the prime minister as a last resort if he betrays the trust reposed in him on issues of pivotal national importance. the prime minister is within his competence to request. which sticks out like a sore thumb. New Zealand and India. who was one of the two British constitutional experts (the other being Lord Blake) regularly consulted by the Queen. The proposal was rejected in the 1999 referendum by 55 percent of the voters and it was decided to . 1999. viable. 1979.

the power to refuse to dissolve parliament and the power to force a dissolution of . The writer is the publisher of Criterion Quarterly. the power to appoint a prime minister.10 of the Advisory Report Bill reads: “It is generally accepted that there are only four powers. and.retain the existing system without altering the “reserve powers” of the governor gen eral. There is no desire to bring the 1973 constitution in conformity with the norms of parliamentary democracy and Mamnoon Hussain will remain a figurehead president. whose writings have prompted this article. (ii) codifying the conventions of the parliamentary system into the basic law to prevent the misuse of power by the president and the prime minister. The clumsily worded formulation in paragraph 4. Email: iftimurshed@gmail.” The reputed scholar A G Noorani. namely. But this requires political maturity blended with visionary leadership which has never been in evidence through the crisis-saturated history of Pakistan. believes that for the transformation of Pakistan into a Westminster-type parliamentary democracy. the power to dismiss a prime minister. all that is required is a modification of the 1973 constitution by: (i) restoring the powers of the president as embodied in the 1956 constitution.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful