THE lead up to the recent Senate elections felt a lot like the lead up to a general election — such was the enthusiasm with which they were conducted, demonstrating amply, to the people of Pakistan, just how committed our politicians are to democracy and democratic institutions. Unfortunately, this same commitment pales when it comes to using these very institutions for legislation and policy formulation in the larger interests of their constituents. We debate ad nauseam about the fruits of democracy (both imagined and otherwise) but completely gloss over the larger question of what the point of democracy is, if the collective wisdom of parliament remains untapped.

Recent events have shown us that rather than relying on constitutional arrangements, our politicians prefer informal arrangements belying the supposed robustness of our parliamentary democracy. Like so much else in this country, politics is an increasingly elitist pursuit with the now ubiquitous ‘all-party conference’ (APC) convened on all issues by the government and even the opposition.

Since all issues of any significance these days require designer solutions, so too do political ones. Whenever the country faces a crisis which has internal or external implications, an APC is demanded by all political parties. A boutique event is then organised by the government and attended by the who’s who of the political class. The highly valuable joint session of parliament, conceived to debate issues of national importance, has now been relegated to host the president’s annual address or for visiting heads of state, creating just enough of an impression of Pakistan’s democratic credentials.

Being the mother institution in a democratic dispensation, the fact that parliament is now consistently disregarded in matters of national importance speaks volumes for our own faith in the system. It is becoming increasingly evident (when we see the usual suspects gather at frequent APCs) that only a select few from amongst the political parties are given a chance to contribute on matters of public importance.

Parliament is often disregarded in matters of national importance.

This kind of political elitism goes against the very spirit of participatory democracy. Why should people go through the exercise of an election, at great expense to the national exchequer if those elected to speak on behalf of the people are asked simply to vote for or against a bill or a policy as per already conveyed instructions? Parliament has a large number of young members who are an asset with their fresh ideas. To stymie their views and not allow them to contribute is a great loss not only to their political parties but also to the nation at large. Parliament remains the best academy for future leaders; it adds value to the political human resource available for various ministerial and other positions.

The oft-mentioned beauty of democracy remains only when the right to debate and contribute to the national discourse is available to all representatives of the people. To convene an APC occasionally, on matters of national importance is all well and good but for this to become the norm is unusual. Our nascent democracy has finally witnessed a transfer of power from one political government to another which should have strengthened our belief in the political system.

Given that the system includes a parliament, provincial assemblies, standing committees, a federal cabinet, a Council of Common Interests and several committees of the cabinet including those on economic coordination, privatisation and defence, the question of why these are not used to debate matters of public concern and national importance in an institutional manner needs to be answered.

Creating yet another forum in the name of reaching consensus on important issues deeply undermines the importance of the very institutions which our democrats are always concerned with safeguarding. We increasingly witness that important decisions are taken in meetings and conferences with the minutes or decisions not being recorded as per the rules which would ensure that those participating can be held answerable for their decisions; instead the public is satisfied with generalised opening remarks and a press release. Discussions in these APCs is limited to a select few within each political party, in effect alienating the people of Pakistan from decision-making on important matters.

Our government and political parties are bursting at the seams with people presumably involved in decision-making and policy formulation, but most are not trained or qualified to deliver in their respective areas of responsibility. The discourse about poor governance is restricted to the very real incompetence of the civil service, and misses out on the lack of capacity of the political class.

Since local government elections have not been held for a few years now, there is little grass roots training for younger politicians. For many their first brush with politics comes when they are elected to the provincial and national assemblies and even there, genuine issue-based debates are rare.

When decision-making is confined to the top leadership of political parties with no room for other cadres this is a waste of time, effort and funds. All this reflects on the general state of governance for which responsibility should be shared between both politicians and the civil bureaucracy. Even those who have reached a certain level are hard-pressed to deliver as most of our politicians and civil servants are deprived of opportunities for training and capacity-building, reflective of an acute dearth of qualified individuals who can fill top slots.

One hopes that since the process of Senate elections is now complete and the Supreme Court has given dates for local bodies elections we would see more involvement of parliamentary institutions in decision-making and policy formulation. If we want to groom future leaders of the calibre of those who drafted the 1973 Constitution, then we have to involve the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan in decision-making and not use them merely for defending the actions of their political parties on television talk shows.

The writer is a former cabinet secretary.

Published in Dawn March 23rd , 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play