The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dr. M. S. Haq

In the present day world, factors such as, mindsets, theories, structures, and practices that are associated with domains of governance have found to be suffering, in varying degrees though, from limitations at relevant operation, non-operation and other levels - relative to time, space and other variables. Governance in Pakistan is not immune to those limitations - as applicable. A brief analysis of a number of above limitations against the backdrop of effort towards enhancing, sustaining and promoting contents of people's representation in the country's governance and their meaningful participation therein - all pursuits of say, the people's welfare would reveal several things. For example:

The result of recently concluded national assembly (hereinafter: the national parliament) election in Pakistan represents inter alia the verdict of less than 50 percent of the country's registered voters - save and except those Pakistanis who were unable to register themselves as voters this time due to a variety of reasons. Further, those, who did vote this time, had cast their votes along various party lines, party manifestos and other things. As a result of above and other related developments, it now appears: the upcoming national parliament will not be able to represent the majority of Pakistani voters; the national parliament will not be able to represent those Pakistanis who could not get themselves registered as voters this time - perhaps a many of them were interested in exercising their voting rights, though; opportunities for dealing with or playing with or reigning over (or otherwise) the needs, wants, desires and expectations of a greater number of Pakistanis by a relatively lesser number of them through their representatives in the national parliament will perhaps be wider and more arbitrary - a somewhat free rider situation; the national parliament will be relieved of, in a sense and to an extent, the direct or indirect burden of its accountability to at least the majority of voters who constitutes the majority of Pakistanis and who did not cast their vote in the election; and accountability of the majority of Pakistanis to the national parliament could find inter alia its expression via democratic and anti-democratic agendas, street politics and pro plus anti-people activities - whether voluntary or not, whether peaceful or otherwise.

The decision pertaining "to cast vote" or "not to cast vote" falls, among other things and in general, within the rights of an individual voter. But the onus in above matter lies, to an extent, on actors such as, political parties when it comes to ensuring maximum participation of voters in elections in the interest of plurality in democracy, better governance, sound politics and so on - relative to time, space and other variables, though.

There could be several reasons as to why the national parliament of 2008 will be represented by a minority of Pakistani voters. In that respect, one could argue: the national parliamentary seats for women (for example) that will be determined on the basis of seats obtained by political parties in the election in a pro rata manner will increase eventually the size of people's representation in the national parliament. In a deeper sense, I believe that would not be the case because the strength of parliamentary seats for women will come from the same aggregate strength of male candidates whom the voters had voted to for example, the national parliament in the election.

Further, allegations concerning the allocation of parliamentary seats for women to friends and relations that have been coming up to the attention of PTV viewers via the courtesy of current affairs programs of Saadia and others tend to suggest that the impact of 'insufficiency' associated with allocation of seats to women could affect the ultimate tensile strength (used in an engineering sense) of the parliament in the near future.

It will be real challenging tasks for the minority-led and somewhat divided (at least on the basis of reported issues) national parliament to for example: strengthen bottom up transactions in governance for higher accountability and transparency; take the right decision at the right time and cost on competing national and other priorities; enhance the per capita welfare of Pakistanis in a significant and sustainable manner; and satisfy maximum number of Pakistanis and others on a continuous basis under the ongoing war on terror situation, price hikes, energy cuts and the present phase of transitional democracy - unless the efforts of treasury, opposition and others at national, provincial and other levels towards building and sustaining consensus on at least a minimum national plus provincial agendas and a common ground for implementing those agendas in a concerted and corruption free fashion under the overall stewardship of the country's experienced President Pervez Musharraf, become successful, for an instance. I believe Pakistan should not go - at least at this point in time and as far as practicable - for policies like inclusions for exclusions. The bottom line is: unite Pakistan, transform enemies into influential friends and harness potentials of all stakeholders for the country's progress and prosperity in a sustainable manner and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

It now appears PML-Q is second in popular vote (PPP is first) in this year's national assembly election. Interesting though, the size and impact of popular vote will have no direct bearing on future parliamentary decisions because those decisions will be taken on the basis (if not changed) of for example: one seat one vote and not one seat one vote plus popular vote, as applicable. In other words, the decisions of upcoming parliament will lose further the amount of people's representation in an already minority led parliament due to present day absence of any provision concerning: as to how to factor popular vote along side one seat one vote in parliamentary decision making processes - unless parliamentary decisions are products of a government of national unity at a given time, per se.

With a view to enhancing further the representative character and content of parliamentary decisions and to making those decisions more competitive and acceptable (to all concerned) within the existing constraints associated with voters' turn out in elections and the ramification thereof, I believe the time is ripe now for the world people to remedy the situation at least in part by considering for example, popular vote as a coefficient of one vote for one seat in relevant cases in future parliamentary decisions. Consider the example: in a mathematical sense, 1.5 is the coefficient of x in1.5x. Now, if the coefficient 1.5 represents the proportionate value of popular vote per qualifying seat where applicable, if x is the value of one vote for one seat, and if the value of x is 10, then the total value of decision vote for a popular vote winner will be 15. In such an event, 10 will be the value for one vote for one seat plus 5 will be the value of the popular vote for each of the wining party members or the runner up party members in national and other elections. But before embarking on what I would call a popular parliamentary decision formula, few things need to be settled.

For example: Whether or not the formula will be applicable to reserved seat holders? Whether or not the formula will be applicable to say, the members of parliament of winning party (in terms of popular vote) and the members of parliament of runner up party (in terms of popular vote) in the elections? Whether or not value differentials will be applied to coefficients of say, the winning party and the runner up party in the elections?

The bottom line is: efforts should be made towards enhancing and sustaining the parliament's accountability to people through the enlargement of people's choices in the parliament and strengthening their ownership therein, and towards the empowerment of the parliament itself, to mention a few.

Governments that are broken or repaired or re-engineered under democratic systems of governance before the expiry of their legitimate terms can affect - either positively or negatively or otherwise and in varying degrees - political stability, economic growth and general well-being of people (to mention a few) of concerned countries, relative to time, space and other variables. PPP, PML-N, PML-Q and other political parties of Pakistan who are now (as of 06 March 2008) apparently busy in the finalization of configuration of future governments at the center and in the provinces - with or without coalition partners - should take note of that.

It is expected the people of Pakistan including inter alia the civil society, the media (print, electronic) and others will assist the political parties in taking decisions concerning the formation of upcoming governments - whether coalition or otherwise - against the backdrop of their (I mean, the concerned political parties) strengths, weaknesses, records and potentials, to mention a few. In that respect, the parties might elect to establish success criteria for the assessment and evaluation of upcoming partners (meaning, political parties) in the governments. Those criteria could include inter alia: previous records of performance; potentials for best performance; organizational behavior; risk taking capacity and capability; honesty, fairness and commitment; governance related leadership, the level of self-realization and self-awareness when it comes to wellbeing of say, Pakistanis; entrepreneurial exposures, skills and experiences; and result-orientations.

The success of upcoming governments would depend on inter alia the quality and the quantity of managing challenges and opportunities (as appropriate) that might arise out of those governments or in the course of governance by those governments or in the process of making outcomes and impacts by those governments or otherwise. A few of them are: duration related stabilities; short and medium term interest, as well as perspectives at local, national, global and other levels including inter alia geo-political interest, situations and ramifications; emerging scenarios of competition and continuity; the country's comparative, competitive and other advantages - both existing and potential; promise realization capabilities during easy times and in trying times; creation of future for the people, the country and the world at large; contingency, as well as fire fighting arrangements for dealing with any unforeseen emergency including inter alia the protection of democracy from risks, threats and vulnerabilities; extremism, terrorism and development; trade and environmental diplomacy; trusted, reliable and dependable partners and leaders in governance during peace times and in difficult times; successor arrangements; people-state synergies; and corruption, terror and poverty free Pakistan - I mean to a humanly possible extent.

As regards the matter of floor crossing, I believe the members of upcoming parliaments should be allowed - with the consent of respective parties - to cast vote in favor of any assembly resolutions that will appear prima-facie to be pro-people or pro-country (to mention a few) and the members should not lose their parliamentary seats on account of those votes.

I also believe the demand of ANP for changing the name of NWFP is, in many respects, fair and justified. It is hoped the change of name will be instrumental in triggering further and sustaining further internal motivation of Pakhtoons for positive engagement in nation building and nation unification activities and not in the disintegration of Pakistan, among other things - in the foreseeable future.

The last word: let Pakistan have a full taste of democracy on a continuous basis. A question is: how would masses, sizes and credibility of coalition partners affect successes, failures and sustainability of upcoming governments and governance in the country? The mass and size of a possible coalition government - PPP plus PML-Q plus ANP - at the center does not appear to be promising at least at this point in time against the backdrop of two heavyweights sharing different views on key national issues. Let us hope for the best!