Contemporary Sovereignty and Pakistan

Contemporary Sovereignty and Pakistan

1. General. Pakistan because of its turbulent past and it’s mindboggling array of internal and external challenges has confronted all sorts of sovereignty issues in its short existence. A partition that raised many problems; the Kashmir conflict; the search for security through alliances and the antecedent issues of sovereignty, the inability to forge strong national institutions that led to separation of East Pakistan; poor internal governance and corruption that has virtually destroyed the social contract between the state and the people, which is the basis of internal sovereignty; And now the latest pressures from the support to the US led war in Afghanistan, that has raised a chorus of voices decrying lost sovereignty. Pakistan is a classic case study for contemporary sovereignty. In this part of the presentation, we will discuss the two major dimensions of sovereignty i.e internal sovereignty and the external sovereignty in Pakistan’s contemporary environment, in light of the theoretical framework of the concept of sovereignty.
2. Internal Sovereignty. In the context of internal sovereignty, following issues will be examined:-
a. The concept of sovereignty in Pakistan is based on the religious interpretations which leave room for dissent and discord.
b. Sovereignty has not flowed to the people, nor the institutions and systems fully developed to safeguard it.
c. Internal Sovereignty weak, exerting a negative pull on the external sovereignty dimensions.
3. The concept of Sovereignty in Pakistan. The preamble of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, derived from the Objectives Resolution defines Sovereignty as “Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust”)
4. The statement that sovereignty belongs to Allah has its roots in Islamic Concept of Sovereignty. Prominent Muslim thinkers Al Farabi Ibn e Sina and Ibn e Rushd, Ibn e Khaldun , all carried forward the idea that the ideal Muslim state was the one governed by the Holy Prophet, and after the departure of the Holy Prophet, the Caliph may exercise these functions. Al Marwadi’s further refined this concept declaring that Muslim Sovereignty would only be legal anywhere if it was sanctioned by the Abbasid Caliph. In Muslim India, commencing with Muhammad Bin Qasim’s conquest of Sind in 711 AD to Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1857, Muslim rulers generally opted for this cosmetic link with the Caliphate to legitimize their rule, although many of them rarely had any Islamic leanings or special interest to enforce Sharia. Pakistan, the latest manifestation of Islamic rule in the Sub Continent, draws its ideological inspiration from these lineages.
5. The controversy.There are two main related to the Objectives resolution. First is that of interpretation and second is political exploitation.
a. Interpretation. There are differing opinions on what an Islamic Republic should look like. The sheer emotive and religious nature of the concept, leads to divisiveness and radical interpretations. This is at the heart of today’s identity crisis, as Pakistan means different things for different people. At one end are those who want to see a rigid theocracy and at the other are those who subscribe to the ideals of a progressive and modern Islamic state.
b. Exploitation. As different politicians from Bhutto to Zia looked to bolster their waning support in the public, they looked towards appeasing the vocal religious parties. Resultantly from a preamble it became an operative part of the constitution in 1985, during the peak of General Zia’s islamization drive. Any move towards Islamization, even sham , becomes the next benchmark, which is then not allowed to be challenged or revisited by the vocal religious parties. Resultantly Pakistan has become much more conservative in official outlook with the passage of time.
6. Sovereignty of the people. Accorging to the constitution, sovereignty of state belongs to the people who have to exercise directly or indirectly the authority of legislation, execution and adjudication, through a democratic dispensation. In Pakistan the actual situation is rather different. Sovereignty was never really transferred to the people, it was usurped by autocrats and resultantly the state of internal sovereignty is far from ideal today, as neither there is a culture nor strong institutions to safeguard it.
“Sixty-three years after independence, Pakistan is torn between its past and present and dangerously at war with itself. “Democracy” in Pakistan is a mask behind which a pestilence flourishes unchallenged. It has a disjointed, dysfunctional, lopsided, hybrid, artificial, political system – a non-sovereign rubberstamp parliament”

7. The delay in transfer of sovereignty to people. At the time of independence, Pakistan needed a constitution and supporting democratic institutions. The process took nine long years. The gap was purposely created and filled by members of establishment performing political functions of state. Bureaucratic elite led by the likes of Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and Army Chief General Ayub Khan exercised real power, while the politicians kept bickering and fighting amongst each other. The elite became more entranced with the passage of time. The externous factors, especially security threat from India over Kashmir, gave a primacy to their interpretation of national priorities.
8. Sovereignty Usurped .In Pakistan sovereignty of people and sovereign status was reduced both through extra-constitutional and constitutional means. It was through the executive, dominated by bureaucratic-military elite and with acquiescence of the judiciary. The most significant development, that laid the foundation for all unconstitutional interventions later on, was the dismissal of the constituent assembly, by Governor General Ghulam Mohammad in 1954. His actions were sanctified by the Supreme Court in Moulvi Tameez-ud-din Case PLD 1955 FC 240. This judgement compromised sovereignty of Representative Assembly on a fragile argument regarding assent of Governor General. Justice A. R. Cornelius was the sole dissenting judge in the landmark judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in the Maulvi Tamizuddin case. The decision to uphold the dismissal of the constituent assembly was to mark the beginning of the overt role of Pakistan's military and civil establishment in Pakistani politics.
9. This was followed by five more unconstitutional takeovers by Iskander Mirza, and Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Haq, and Pervez Musharraf . Each time the constitution was mutilated and changed as per the desires of the dictator. Another significant part of this pattern was that both General Zia and Musharraf introduced Provisional Constitutional Ordinances, which granted them sweeping constitutional powers usurping the powers of judiciary, forcing the judges to take a fresh oath, which was only offered to compliant judges ,thus removing all the opposition. The compliant judiciary then rubber stamped all the unconstitutional measures by the regimes .
10. The impact on National Cohesion.The inabity to transfer power to the masses and fulfill the social contract, resulted in the alienation of the Eastern wing and final breakup, through a painful civil war and Indian intervention. In the petition by Asma Jilani against Yahya’s martial law, Chief Justice Yaqub ,referring to the dismissal of first constituent assembly declared
11. “The secession of East Pakistan, thirteen years later, is in my view directly attributable to the tragic incident (removal of the constituent assembly)t “In Islamic Jurisprudence, the will of a sovereign, be he the monarch, the President or the Chief Martial Law Administrator is not the source of law. The people as delegatee of the sovereignty of the Almighty alone can make laws which are in conformity with the Holy Quran and Sunnah” .
12. Similar views can be found in a prophetic report titled “Pakistan’s Military Regime Faces Great Problems”, by the US Department of State in December 1958, on the eve of military takeover by General Ayub Khan,:-
“The prospect of prolonged suppression of freedom under military domination would intensify the risk of such an increase in tension and discontent in East Pakistan as perhaps to jeopardize the unity of the two wings of the country” .
13. The Problem of Internal Sovereignty in Pakistan. Unrepresentative Governments in the past and corrupt and ineffective democratic dispensations and a total lack of accountability have all contributed to a reduction in the internal sovereignty. So, how much sovereignty do the people of Pakistan enjoy today? Taking into account the indicators discussed in the first part, the situation is not very encouraging. Dissolution of the representative institutions is central dilemma against development of people’s sovereignty in the country. The state is facing certain deficiencies in characteristics of sovereignty. Its right of territorial jurisdiction has been badly impaired. Its parliament seems to have imperfect control over decision-making process. The executive organ seems not accountable to the parliament. Public service system has lost its capacity to deliver national services and has converted the range of its obligations to its privileges. Armed and resourceful sections of society have replaced system of rule of law with rule of force in the country. Consequently the state has been forced to survive as state of national defense rather a welfare state and is fighting war of survival at each front.
14. This weak state of internal sovereignty directly affects foreign policy decisions and impinges upon ability of state to exercise external sovereignty.
15. The fundamental question today is about the perceived sovereignty deficit confronting the country:

“Pakistanis of nearly all ideological, economic, and political stripes are wrestling with a fundamental question: is their state sovereign? Today, the state is a fiscal wreck. It is unable to pay its bills, create jobs at a pace needed to keep up with its burgeoning population, or invest in its people. Its security arrangements are shambolic,with foreign terrorists ensconced in its military cantonment areas, sprawling metropolises, and tribal areas alike. The ongoing U.S. drone operations — whose exact nature is obfuscated by the Pakistani and American governments — and the May 2 raid by U.S.
Navy SEAL teams on Abbottabad that resulted in Osama Bin Laden’s
\death further prompt Pakistanis to wonder who controls their state and who exactly can protect them from domestic and external threats” .
To answer these question we need to analyse the dimensions of external sovereignty and the linkages between internal and external Sovereignty