AS widely predicted, the Supreme Court has declared the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) unconstitutional thus setting aside all benefits accrued under the controversial law. The apex court's decision will make for cleaner politics in Pakistan; however, in the days to come, it is likely to create immense problems for the PPP-led government and leadership already facing charges of corruption, inefficiency and insensitivity to the people's problems.

According to the Supreme Court's order, the NRO is void ab initio being ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including Articles 4 (right to be dealt with in accordance with law), 8 (laws inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void), 25 (equality of citizens), 62 (qualifications for members of parliament), 63 (disqualifications for members of parliament), 89 (powers of the president to promulgate ordinances), 175 (jurisdiction of courts) and 227 (Islamic injunctions).

Legally and constitutionally, the court has exploded the NRO and reversed the benefits accrued under its umbrella. Politically the ordinance has, more than anything else, brought a bad name to the PPP government. In

politics, as in life, a bad name is worse than a bad deed. In retrospect, the NRO was a bad deal on the part of the PPP. Though it made it possible for the party leadership to return home, take part in the electoral process and make it to the corridors of power, it has damaged their credibility probably beyond repair.

The NRO is a classic example of how a short-term gain can sometimes turn into a long-term loss. In 1988, too, the PPP had struck a deal with the establishment for forming the government. But within twenty months, the PPP government was booted out. The NRO on the one hand has been a convenient stick in the hands of the opposition to beat the government with; on the other hand, it has dented the PPP's popular credentials for how can a pro-people party demand special treatment for its leaders? The cases, which were withdrawn under the NRO might have been politically motivated, but it was for the judiciary to decide this and not for the beneficiaries themselves.

The PPP leadership has been practising realpolitik — turning back on their word, for instance — without having the brains and the will necessary to make such politics a success. They seem to have the uncanny habit of taking a tough stance and then back-pedalling on the same. To begin with, they refused to reinstate the judges deposed by General Pervez Musharraf and dubbed the issue insignificant or at best of secondary importance. We all know that the very issue, particularly the way it was handled, had brought not only the government but the political system itself on the verge of collapse before the ruling party succumbed to the pressure and reinstated the judges.

Then the government decided to make the NRO into a law by putting the seal of parliament on it, but again rescinded the decision when faced with strong opposition including that from their allies. The PPP leaders and spokespersons were never tired of claiming that the NRO was an insignificant issue and that the benefits obtained thereunder were a past and closed transaction. Is it so? Neither legally nor politically is the NRO a past and closed transaction.

Already there are rumours about the exit of the government and installation of an interim set-up similar to the one in Bangladesh, once our eastern wing. No doubt, the very idea of an interim regime is unconstitutional. Moreover, the Supreme Court in its July 31, 2009 verdict categorically declared that the constitution could not be held in abeyance whatever the circumstances, and the opposition leader Mr Nawaz Sharif has also opposed such an arrangement. However, Pakistan has a history of experimenting with unconstitutional set-ups, which have lived longer than any constitutional government. Besides, constitutional provisions or judicial decisions, with all their importance, can hardly constitute in themselves a strong bulwark against extra-constitutional steps.

On paper, Pakistan may have all the features of a democratic system. However, merely having a democratic system, though exceedingly important, does not guarantee the preservation and growth of the democratic order. For, as Aristotle, generally regarded as the world's first political scientist, pointed out, there may be a difference between what a political system on paper is and how it actually works.

The political system created by the 1973 constitution has been a democratic one in form but has seldom been made to work in a democratic fashion. What really guarantees the preservation and growth of democracy is strong democratic institutions, rule of law and people's perception that they have high stakes in the continuation of the democratic process. It is the absence of these three factors that accounts for the fact that unconstitutional regimes in Pakistan have had virtually a smooth sailing.

A strong political system embodies a consensus among political forces against political authoritarianism, which is the hallmark of a truly democratic polity. In India, for instance, there are parties of the right, centre and the left, which may differ on many issues but all agree that India should be a multiparty democracy. Probably it is this agreement that more than any other factor has prevented any military adventurer from stepping in. Conversely, in Pakistan, military takeover has always found ample political support and sympathy. Even today there is strong political support for the armed forces' political role.

The responsibility for arresting the drift towards another extra-constitutional set-up lies with all stakeholders. However, above all it is the responsibility of the ruling PPP leadership, as the situation is largely of their own making. First of all, the president should agree to divest himself of the powers to dismiss the National Assembly under Article 58-2(b) of the constitution.

Already the repeal of the seventeenth amendment to the constitution, on which there is a broad consensus among all political forces of note, has been inadvertently delayed in the name of coming up with a comprehensive constitutional package. No doubt, several provisions of the constitution need to be amended or repealed. But this does not mean that they should be amended or repealed at one go. The argument that there is no urgency to scrap Article 58-2(b), because President Zardari will not dismiss his own government is not valid.

The repeal of Article 58-2(b) is not a matter of saving a government but of strengthening parliament. In the event that Mr Zardari is forced to quit the office of the president, would not the repeal of the infamous Article become a matter of urgency?

Secondly, the members of the federal cabinet or top bureaucracy, whose cases will be re-opened in the light of the SC verdict, should be replaced with those having cleaner credentials.

Thirdly, and this is probably most important, the government should try and address people's problems unemployment, poverty, lack of access to basic amenities and price hike. People must have high stakes in the continuation of the democratic process—this is possible only if democracy serves the people—otherwise they will care little whether a civilian or khaki rules them.

But politically we are not mature enough to accept our failings, sort out our problems in a way that does not violate the rules of the game and exercise the freedom that democracy gives us in a responsible manner.

hussainhzaidi@gmail.com