Democratization; An Evaluation of 13th and 14th Amendments

In Nawaz’2nd Tenure

Introduction
Democratization is a debate which as per being told by history, initiated among
Greeks, how did it started can be speculated only. Later on it evolved and now it has
given the mankind only practical way through which the masses can have a
perception of freedom, as perception precedes effective manner.

The example of Great Britain can be narrated to endorse the hypothesis that the abuse
of power preceded the culture of power sharing. Moreover, The French
Revolutionary of 1789, which can never be ignored in the modern history of Europe,
gives clear evidence that the abuse of power was unprecedented before the eruption
of revolution. Furthermore, the latest revolution took place in the Middle Eastern
state of Iran in last quarter of twentieth century. In which the revolutionary setup
succeeded a monarchical apparatus, the later was imposed in its nature and abuse of
power was one of significant impetuses for revolution. As the level of power abuse
will incline, it will indirectly urge society to join hand against it. By quoting above
three examples it can be concluded that abuse of power precedes development of
democratic culture intensity of the later is directly dependent upon that of former.
As abuse of power cannot be tolerated by the society in the long run.

Here in this assignment, the task assigned to the student is to elaborate the process
of democratization in the second tenure of Nawaz Sharif (1997-1999). In Feb, 1997
Nawaz’s Muslim league landed in the National assembly of Pakistan with two/third
majority. Here starts the abuse of power in explicit manner by a democratically
elected Prime Minister. As he entered the office, he faced two major problems.

First was ever-deterioration law and order situation due to ethnic strife and
sectarianism. Sindh and Karachi specifically was paying high price in form of
material and blood due to ethnic division. And sectarian violence was a major reason
behind brute rampage in Punjab. The second problem was political instability which
was haunting the political apparatus of Pakistan since the end of Zia’s regime in
1988. The political instability was springing from two major factors;

1 Horse Trading

2 Over Use of Article 58-2b

Benazir, the daughter of late Zulifqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, son of a Punjabi
bussiness man were two major political actors in Pakistani politics commanding two
political parties.

Since, the election of 1988, not even a single government succeeded in completing
its full term of five years. And behind this conundrum arbitrary powers of the
president and horse-trading were the most significant reasons. So, Nawaz Sharif’s
government in its second tenure indoctrinated two amendments upon which the
analysis will be done.

Research Questions

1- How abuse of power eventually became a hurdle on the way of

democratization during Nawaz’s second tenure?

2- Why political instability proved injurious for democracy?

Research Hypothesis
Nawaz Sharif’s second tenure was very important for democratization in Pakistan.
The expectations for democracy were giant. Over use of Article 58(2b) remained not
good in political history of Pakistan during decade. Nawaz’s second tenure begins
with new hopes and prospects but once again democracy failed. The failure of
representative government became inevitable because of abuse of power, wrong
decisions and political instability.

Nawaz Government Introduced Thirteenth and Fourteenth

amendment

These two constitutional amendments were introduced to deal

with the problems of political stability overtly but under the cover
of real problems, bypassing judiciary for power acquisition and
consolidation of hegemony over the party’s members were real
intentions. By Thirteenth amendment, the so called article 58-2B
indoctrinated by eight amendment under Zia’s era was revoked.
As far as the revocation of article 58-2b is concerned it was a good
for establishing the supremacy of elected parliament. But the way
that constitutional amendment was passed by national assembly
gave an impression of unholy intentions.

Under the disguise of article 58-2B, another restraint was put on

the discretionary powers of the president by introducing article
243 through which president’s discretionary powers of appointing
heads of armed forces became subjected to the advice of the Prime
Minister.

Thirteenth amendment was supported by political parties as both

of the major political players had suffered at the hands of
President’s unrestrained powers to dissolve the national assembly.
To deal with the matter of faithfulness of party members in
legislatures, Nawaz’s government introduced Fourteenth
amendment. The 14th amendment inserts article 163-4 into the
constitution which prevents the members of national assembly or
senate to vote against the instructions of their parties.
Before going further, one thing needs to be mentioned here that
in Pakistani political parties democratic culture is a far cry. In
hollistic manner, all major political parties have been hijacked at
the hands of dynasticism. Now let’s connect the inside dynastic
culture of political parties with 14th amendment. Through 14th
amendment, the members of parliament were bound to vote for
party’s stance and incase of disagreement with the stance of party,
legislator could face with disqualification from legislative
assembly.

Here it becomes much difficult to comprehend that with the aid

of a constitutional amendment, the conscience of the members
was being subjugated by the party heads. How one can vote for a
policy or stance, if his conscience did not contribute in that
specific policy or stance and incase of disagreement with the
stance of party, legislator could face with disqualification from
legislative assembly. Here it becomes much difficult to
comprehend that with the aid of constitutional amendment,
members were being subjugated by party heads. How can one
vote for a policy or stance if his conscience did not contribute in
that specific policy or stance. In case when a legislator did not
agree with the party he would be asked to reply show cause. The
committee will be made by the party head and the party head will
be the final arbiter to decide the political fate of member.

This means that even if voting for a specific policy or stance is

against the individual’s political convictions and moral
principles, he is bound to do it on the advice of party head.

In simple terms Nawaz Sharif being PM tried to impose his

conscience upon two-third majority of parliament.

Proponents of Fourteenth Amendment;

Two arguments are advanced by those who support 14th

constitutional amendment:

First

It acts like a barrier against horse trading and brings political

stability.

Second

As a corollary, it prohibits defections by parliamentarians.

Nawaz’s attitude against the problem of law and order:

Ever deteriorating law and order situation was not new thing in
the second tenure of Nawaz Sharif. But Benazir in her tensure
preceding Nawaz brought peace. Although, the means adopted
were questionable. The response of Nawaz Sharif was an act
named Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. This act was a major infact the
only factor which led both executive and judiciary on a collision
course. How can it be stated that this act gave an impetus to
government and judiciary to confront each other. The act
presented by the government was faced with criticism from all
other major political parties.

Parliamentary and opposition leader in senate Aitzaz Ahsan stated

that “This law night be used for political victimization add to the
misery of the innocent people and a death blow to the existing
judicial system. Ameer of a religious political party named Jamat-
e-Islami, Qazi Hossain Ahmed said that this kind of black law had
no precedent even in the colonial era of the British rule.

Now let’s discuss that how it can be regarded as a law contrary to

democratic culture. Pakistan is a country where parliamentary
form of government is constitutionally employed. And
constitution is codified, independent and integrated judiciary is
constitutionally established. Through this law, A parallel court
structure of special courts was created to deal with cases of
terrorism for the purpose of speedy trails by Nawaz’s
government.

Security forces were given license to break into the privacy of any
citizen’s house without judicial warrants. If someone was killed
by security forces, the personnel of security agency could be freed
if he proved that the killed one was intended to violate law and
order. In a functioning democracy how it can even be allowed to
breach the liberty and privacy of citizens by abusing the majority
in legislature.

Above mentioned points are just a little, infact through this act,
sitting government tried to bypass existing judicial structure. As
the special courts would work directly under the supervision of
federal government. Federal government would appoint judges
after consultation with the chief judge of concerned high court.
But federal government was not bound to the suggestions of
judicial stature. This act of 1997 maligned the face of Pakistani
democracy as by indoctrination of this act the government
showed the distrust in existing judicial system. Infact those
special courts were not even under the authority of
constitutionally sanctified conventional judiciary. As the
decisions given by those special courts could not be challenged in
high court or Supreme Court of Pakistan. Here let’s have a look
upon the perspective of Pakistan’s judicial hierarchy.

When Prime Minister said that courts should help government

weed out crime from society. Chief Justice of Pakistan responded
that the number of judges was to be increased for early
dispensation of Justice. Mr.Sajjad Ali Shah responded with the
most appropriate and politically mature suggestion but Nawaz’s
government let it down. It was not the judiciary only who opposed
the idea of special courts but circles associated with it also
opposed the Anti-Terrorism act in open manner.

Pakistan law commission opposed the idea of setting up of special

courts for curbing terrorism. One thing that created a hysterical
situation was non-assurance of a security of tenure to the judges
of the special courts. As the security of tenure is the sine qua non
for independence of judiciary. In simple words, those special
court judges were tools at the hands of government. As they could
be deposed anytime and anyone qualified and trusted of
government could be appointed by federal government alone.

In a country where constitution is codified and functional

democracy is present, how much fragile is another matter, law
like these decreases public trust on democracy. And this law in
fact shacked public confidence upon democratic institutions in
Pakistan.

Nawaz Sharif as main actor;

As it has been mentioned that the ruling party was enjoying 2/3
majority in legislature but here comes the idea of Bertrand Russell
that gaining control over a specific setup in society is the first step
then comes your intentions. That in what manner you want to
move as being a controller of that specific apparatus.

Nawaz, after gaining control of legislature did not opted the ways
that could increment democratic culture in substantial manner in
the history of Pakistani politics.

➢ First of all he curbed the discretionary powers of the office

of the president. As he had suffered and it was a need of hour.
 But after consolidating the office of Prime Minister by
introducing article 243.
➢ Second, he through indoctrination of 14th amendment tried
to be a democratically elected dictator. As he tried to
subjugate the conscience of his party members.

In this civilized and advanced age, bargaining and debate is the

only way of getting consent. But Nawaz’s mentality amended the
constitution in such a manner that the real purpose of democracy
was suppressed under the banner of action against horse trading
and terrorism.

Nawaz Sharif’s intentions were autocrative as the Prime Minister

did not allow to the existing judiciary to play its constitutional
role in solutions of the political and societal problems. Supreme
judiciary and Higher judiciary both were not allowed by the
government to be an arbiter in 13th and 14th amendments.

Incase of anti-terrorism act of 1997 Nawaz indirectly tried to

exploit these special courts according to his will. In a country, that
is republic and a codified constitution is the supreme law of the
land, rolls are defined and power can be used in a legal manner
by sharing with other constitutional offices.
Reaction of the Supreme Court

Supreme court, in the judgment, directed the government to

amend certain portions of the act and also put the special courts
structure under the sphere of influence of conventional judiciary.
All this happened when a petition was filed in the Supreme Court
of Pakistan to review the 14th amendment passed by national
legislature.

Conclusion

Nawaz Sharif came into power after gaining two-third majority in

central legislature. But the attitude shown by him was resembling
a dictatorial mentality. Before the elections of 1997, the
provincial Chief Minister ship of Punjab was promised to the
Chaudhrys of Gujrat. But at the eleventh hour, he defied and gave
the chief ministership to his brother. It implies that Mr. Nawaz
was far away from being democratic. Lust for more and more
power was the dilemma of Nawaz. For that pursuit he could face
opposition from within his party, for that purpose he brought 14th
amendment. In the presence of constitutionally authoritative
Judiciary he could not victimize his opponents. So, he came up
with the idea of establishing special court structure working at his
discretion to victimize political opponents. He even attacked
Supreme Court when the CJP played a hard inning and tried to be
a strong impediment on the way of Nawaz Sharif to become an
elected dictator. The stigma of attack upon Supreme Court is
attached with Nawaz Sharif.

The whole debate gives little evidence of positive contribution in

the democratization of Pakistan sponsored by Nawaz Sharif in his
second tenure. By evaluating the second tenure of Nawaz Sharif,
we can comprehend that under the banner of democratic
institution, an elected government can be tyrant. As it was
election in Germany who brought Hitler into power. But Hitler
was not proved to be a democratic minded. It can be stated that
where the democratic values will precede functional democratic
setup, the democratization in that states will be substantial and
more enduring as compare to that of those where democratization
is upside down and elite sponsored.