The setting is the courtyard of a dilapidated village house. A group of adults, some with slates and chalk, and others with a notebook or two, sit on the courtyard floor. A teacher takes his place on a charpoy. It quickly becomes clear that this house is hosting a school for adults. The topic of discussion in class today: democracy.

“What is democracy?” asks the teacher.

There are grumbles and groans but no clear response. The teacher is visibly annoyed. A student attempts an answer but the teacher is not satisfied.

“You don’t know the meaning of democracy!” he says, “even though so many of you are sitting here!”

The students are sufficiently shamed.

“I’ll tell you,” proceeds the teacher. “Democracy means whoever has more numbers will form the government. And whoever can purchase more votes will become a minister.”

The students are stumped.

“What? We don’t understand,” they shout collectively.

“Okay, tell me: who was [Mughal Emperor]

Humayun’s son?”

Some shout “Akbar.” Others shout “Babar.”

“Silence please,” requests the teacher. “Now those of you who said that Akbar was the son of Humayun, please raise your hands.”

The students comply and the teacher starts counting: “One, two…”

The teacher then asks those who believed Babar was the son of Humayun to raise their hands.

“One, two, three and four,” says the teacher before declaring: “It has been democratically proved that Babar was the son of Humayun. This is democracy.”

This scene is from the classic social satire television programme Taleem-i-Balighan [Education for Adults], written by Khawaja Moinuddin and aired by Pakistan Television during the black-and-white era of the late 1960s.

Satire came to life as reality during elections to the Senate earlier this month.

First came the election of senators, on March 3, a process that became tainted with allegations of foul play and horse-trading.

Allegations of foul play marred elections to the upper house of parliament. And while some believed that the polls taking place was an achievement in itself, democracy was delivered a blow...

Then, on March 12, came the election for the offices of Senate chairman and deputy chairman.

Those sitting in the parliament galleries and those watching on their television screens perhaps gasped in unison as the presiding officer declared that 40-year-old Sadiq Sanjrani — a minnow, let alone being a political minnow — was the new, democratically-elected chairman of the Senate. Without any political association, he had managed to defeat an alliance of parties headed by political heavyweights such as Mian Nawaz Sharif, Mahmood Khan Achakzai, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Hasil Bizenjo and Pir Pagara.

To call this is a surprise would be understating the shock to the system. How could an absolute nobody first win the Senate elections as an independent candidate, and then, conquer the top office of the upper house of the parliament? How could seasoned politicians be taken out in one fell swoop? Who was behind it all?

The only support that Sanjrani seemed to have was from five other candidates from Balochistan, who were all also independent candidates. What was so special about this six-man squad that compelled archrivals Asif Ali Zardari and Imran Khan to join forces and put their

weight behind Sanjrani? Why did the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) — the second-largest party in the house with 20 seats — opt for the deputy chairman’s office? The consensus among commentators is that the party would have bagged the Senate chairman’s office with ease had Raza Rabbani been nominated.

And yet, Sadiq Sanjrani is now the chairman of the Senate, having acquired office through a “democratic process” as detailed in the constitution. But perhaps, more than the constitution, Sanjrani’s election fits the definition of democracy given by the old village schoolteacher in Taleem-i-Balighan.

‘DEMOCRACY VERSUS DEEP STATE’

The March 3 Senate elections appear to be the most controversial elections in the 45-year-old history of the upper house of the Parliament as all the parties are crying foul and accusing each other of indulging in horse-trading. Elections to the Senate are held after every three years. And in a country such as Pakistan, where the military has directly ruled for more than three decades, these elections have continued to take place without fail for the past 33 years.

But never have the Senate elections garnered as much public attention as they did this time round. The media gave unprecedented coverage to it, in part because there was absolutely no certainty about whether elections would even be held. The apprehension was that the “real political players” or the “establishment” of the country did not want to see a second smooth transition from one civilian government to another.

And then the events that unfolded — starting with the Supreme Court removing Nawaz Sharif from office in the Panama Papers case to a ruling that effectively barred the former prime minister from holding office of party president — further strengthened the narrative that Senate elections were in jeopardy. This wasn’t only the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) position; events later on proved how widespread this fear had become among mainstream political actors.

Perhaps the seeds of discontent were sown two months ago, when the PML-N lost its coalition government in Balochistan after a revolt within the party. Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal declared in the aftermath that it seemed the Senate elections would not be held on time. Many started to argue that this political move in Balochistan, at this point in time, was being orchestrated by the invisible “non-political forces” in an attempt to delay the Senate polls.

The ruling party found more reasons to beat the drum. The verdict that barred Sharif from holding a party office also stripped PML-N candidates of their election symbol, merely a few days before the Senate polls, because their nominations had been signed by Sharif.

Despite the roadblocks, the Senate elections could not be delayed. But those intent on derailing the democratic process had more tricks up their sleeves. Many within political circles in Islamabad believe that after “Plan A” — to delay the Senate elections — failed to materialise, the “plotters” implemented “Plan B” and deprived the single largest party of the upper house from getting its people elected as the Senate chairman and the deputy chairman.

Similarly, it is believed by some politicians that when “their” plan to bring Zardari and Imran Khan together — through Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) chief Dr Tahirul Qadri — failed in January, they managed to achieve the same target through “the young and dynamic” Balochistan Chief Minister Abdul Quddoos Bizenjo.

The chief minister accomplished this task of bringing the two together from the Balochistan House in Islamabad, where he lodged himself a few days before the Senate elections. From here, he shuttled between Zardari House and Bani Gala. Eventually, he succeeded in getting Imran Khan to vote for Zardari’s nominee for deputy chairman. Although the move was justified in the name of giving representation to a smaller province, nobody is quite ready to believe that Zardari and Imran Khan have done so to ameliorate the sufferings of the people of Balochistan.

Another face-saving excuse being made by Imran Khan these days is: “Had we allowed the PML-N to bag the office of the Senate chairman, they would have brought legislation to save the Sharifs from accountability and to protect money that they have looted.”

Many in the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) rank and file remain unconvinced. And in reality, too, Khan’s statements are meant to pacify the many workers who are unhappy with the leadership’s decision to enter into an undeclared alliance with a man they deem among the most corrupt — Zardari. The PTI’s official spin is that this move not only blocks the PML-N’s route to the top but it also defends the democratic gains made since the removal of Sharif.

But seasoned politicians are refusing to buy such arguments. They don’t believe that machinations in the Senate polls represent any democratic progress. Instead, they argue, it represents the bulldozing of a genuine political mandate.

For instance, Awami National Party (ANP) leader Afrasiab Khattak tweeted: “Plan A was to not let Senate election take place. That failed. Plan B is to have a controlled Senate in spirit of puppet show [sic]. RR [Raza Rabbani] and F U Babar [Farhatullah Babar] were pain in the neck [sic] for advocating supremacy of parliament. It’s about democracy vs deep state. Who stands where?”

HOUSE OF THE FEDERATION

It is now up to Sanjrani to prove Khattak’s apprehensions wrong. But as the first session of the new Senate began, emotions ran high and tempers went on the boil. In a break from tradition, the first session was not a congratulatory one nor did it begin with any note of optimism. Instead, the mood was sombre as veteran politicians, who believed they had managed to build a semblance of the supremacy of parliament, brick by brick, now felt that the house had come crashing down.

“Today I feel ashamed to sit here,” thundered Hasil Bizenjo of the National Party (NP) on the floor of the house. He added that the parliament would have won if Raza Rabbani had been fielded as a consensus candidate.

When Sanjrani reminded him that the norm was for speeches during the opening session to congratulate the winners, the NP president retorted: “Whom should I congratulate and for what? The face of parliament has been blackened today.”

Bizenjo argued that the parliament stood defeated this day when it was practically proved that the “dominant forces” were more powerful than the parliament. He said the assemblies of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had been turned into a market where votes were purchased. He asked the “dominant institutions” and political parties to let democracy prevail.

Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party’s (PkMAP’s) Usman Kakar, who had also contested for the deputy chairman office, was more direct in his speech when he said an intelligence agency was continuously meddling in the affairs of parliament — an act he deemed as “venomous for the state.”

“They want to defeat parliament and democracy,” warned Kakar. “They have opened up a front in the country.”

The PkMAP leader appealed to all political parties to unite for the supremacy of parliament, rule of law and constitution, and to prevent the interference of intelligence agencies in politics. He argued that given what had happened during the Senate elections, the intelligence agencies had now put a question mark over the upcoming general elections, too.

The bitter and fiery speeches delivered on the floor of the house during the first session are perhaps a prelude to the difficult time the new chairman potentially faces. Most frontal attacks on the election of the first-ever Senate chairman from Balochistan have in fact come from nationalists from Balochistan.

Sanjrani’s first task will be to win the trust of the house, the majority of whom believe that he has reached the office through manipulation and with the support of “unseen forces.” In fact, the contrast with Rabbani became obvious during the former chairman’s speech on the opening day. Rabbani argued that a loud and clear message from parliament should be put across that the parliament’s supremacy could neither be jailed nor be chained.

Sanjrani, obviously, has big boots to fill.

And he can do so only by strictly following the traditions and policies put in place by his predecessor. Rabbani had transformed the Senate from a “debating club” to a true “House of the Federation” in merely three years. And in pursuance of this objective, the tagline “House of the Federation” has been added to the Senate emblem to reflect the constitutional scheme in the creation of the Senate.

It is now up to Sanjrani to prove Afrasiab Khattak’s apprehensions wrong. But as the first session of the new Senate began, emotions ran high and tempers went on the boil. In a break from tradition, the first session was not a congratulatory one nor did it begin with any note of optimism.

On February 13 last year, the Senate had also passed a resolution to enhance its role and powers to protect the rights of the federating units and to ensure meaningful participation of the provinces in the affairs of the federation. This resolution gave voice to the longstanding and rising demand of the provinces, members and other stakeholders, that there is a need to revisit the legislative competence, parliamentary oversight and other functions of the Senate, in particular, its relationship with the provinces. It seeks amendments to 11 articles of the constitution dealing with the relationship between the centre and the provinces.

During his three-year tenure, Rabbani issued 78 rulings — more than the combined rulings of his three predecessors in 13 years. Rulings are the most important parliamentary tool, which reflects the authority, sanctity and wisdom of the custodian of the house.

RABBANI’S LEGACY

Rabbani’s legacy does not end merely at the number of rulings made.

The first thing Rabbani decided to do when he assumed office was to start house proceedings at the scheduled time. And he did so throughout his three-year tenure, barring a couple of exceptions. An attendance register has also been placed outside the official gallery — officials and officers of the ministries and divisions who are supposed to be present during the proceedings mark their attendance themselves.

Senate rules were also amended to ensure that ministers concerned shall, after every three months, appear before the house and report on all matters referred by the house and recommendations made by various committees. For the first time in the parliamentary history of Pakistan, senators from different political parties found representation in the all-powerful Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Last year, when the prime minister transferred the administrative control of five regulatory authorities from the Cabinet Division to their respective line ministries, the Senate chairman took note of this executive step. He ruled that, “control of regulatory authorities cannot be transferred from one ministry to another without obtaining prior approval from the Council of Common Interests (CCI) in terms of Article 154 of the Constitution.” Rabbani declared that any attempt to bypass the CCI in taking such policy decisions was a constitutional violation affecting the rights of the federating units, hence against the spirit of participatory federalism and the scheme of the constitution.

The very next day, the Lahore High Court also suspended the memorandum, through which the regulatory authorities were transferred to the line ministries, on the same grounds.

Rabbani also took notice of many important issues concerning the federation. These included things such as the delay in constituting the eighth National Finance Commission Award; the objections of provinces regarding the population census; policy decisions affecting provincial autonomy; delay in various developmental and economic projects in Balochistan that were part of the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP); the absence of constitutional provisions regarding observance of provincial quotas in appointments and many other such issues.

The House of Federation embarked upon another journey of taking the lead and initiating a mechanism through which different institutions can sit together and work on defining not only the boundaries of each other’s work jurisdiction but also in helping each other out for the common goal of national prosperity.

The Senate amended its rules for the creation of a “Committee of the Whole” — the entire membership of the house was now able to sit together as a committee to discuss issues of national importance. They now had the power to summon a person or request the production of papers or record from any division, department, autonomous body, semi-autonomous body or organisation. It could cross-question persons on oath or solemn affirmation, or invite or summon any person to give evidence in relation to any matter under its consideration.

The Senate itself took initiative to bring forward legislation for the provision of inexpensive and speedy justice to the people of Pakistan. The Committee of the Whole invited relevant stakeholders of the justice sector and petitions were invited from the public at large. In response, the committee received more than 100 petitions and proposals from the justice sector and public. The bench, the most important stakeholder, was represented by the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, who addressed the committee on November 3, 2015.

The proposals received, and the discussions during the hearings, led to the conclusion that the system is confronted with a serious crisis of abnormal delays in adjudication. The delay in settlement of civil disputes, beside causing frustration to the litigant public, also hamper the socio-economic development of society, whereas delay in criminal justice negates several fundamental rights including the right to freedom of movement and dignity of man.

Besides the CJP, army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa — along with other senior military and intelligence officials — also came for a briefing to the senators on national security issues. The senators got the opportunity to ask questions from the army chief and a candid discussion took place on the floor of the house.

Then there was business that was left incomplete by the previous house. For example, the Unattended Orphans (Rehabilitation and Welfare) Bill 2013, introduced by Senator Karim Ahmed Khawaja in the year 2013, could not see the light of day due to many impediments, including non-responsiveness from the executive. Rabbani’s Senate referred the bill to the House Business Advisory Committee.

The committee held extensive deliberations and, while considering the matter regarding parentage of abandoned children for registration for the purposes of computerised national identity card (CNIC) and child registration certificate (CRC), also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Human Rights Case No. 22607-S of 2011 dated 29-05-2014. A comprehensive bill was subsequently presented in the house, which was passed by the Senate in May, 2016.

Similarly, the Emigration (Amendment) Bill 2013 seeking to protect the property rights of oversees Pakistanis, the Anti-Rape Laws (Criminal Laws) (Amendment) Bill 2013 seeking to address lacunas in existing laws and improving conviction rates, the Anti-Honour Killing Laws (Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill 2014 to deter and prevent honour killings, had all been passed by the Senate. But these had not become laws due to the failure of the National Assembly to pass them within the stipulated time.

All these bills were referred to the joint sitting of the parliament, which eventually passed them.

Away from the business of the house, a monument has been constructed in the lawns of the parliament to pay tribute to those unnamed heroes who were tortured, murdered and imprisoned in the struggle to save and retain democracy. The leadership of both houses have decided that all foreign dignitaries coming to the Parliament House would first pay a visit to the monument of the unsung heroes, lay a wreath and pay homage to them.

A Gali-e-Dastoor [Constitutional Lane] has been created in the Parliament House to pay humble tribute to the teeming millions of Pakistanis who were killed, tortured, jailed, lashed or sent into exile in view of their struggle for democratic rights. A Senate Museum has also been set up to preserve and project the soul and spirit of the Senate. It compiles and narrates the evolution, historical background and reorganisation of Senate through combination of pictorial and physical display of various artefacts, murals, dioramas, exhibits and historical documents.

The monument, gallery and the museum will always remind the visitors the time and achievements of the Senate under Rabbani and it is believed that no future adventurer will dare to demolish these structures.

A STEP FORWARD FOR DEMOCRACY?

Given Rabbani’s legacy and the decorum of the house that he had managed to set up, the 2018 Senate elections must have opened the eyes of those who were very enthusiastic and optimistic about the future of democracy in Pakistan. Events beginning from the dislodging of the PML-N coalition government in Balochistan to Sanjrani’s election should be sufficient to explain the state of democracy in the country after more than nine years of continuity of the democratic system.

Indeed, in political theory, one way to understand democracy is through the concepts of procedural democracy and substantive democracy. Procedural democracy fulfils the role of electing representatives, but not much else. In this form of democracy, a process being completed does not entail that the people’s will has also been represented. Substantive democracy is about a form of governance that has more substance to it and is reflective of the larger democratic will. This form of democracy is considered a better form of governance than procedural democracy.

The 2018 Senate elections have made clear once again that Pakistan’s democracy is still mired in procedural democracy. Despite the process of elections having taken place, the great tragedy is that the people’s will and mandate have both been bulldozed. In fact, those in political circles in Islamabad are already arguing that the Senate elections are just a trailer and the full movie will be released just before the next general elections. The rumour mill is also speculating on what the Plan A, Plan B and Plan C is for the national polls. The nation may see some more dramatic and fast-paced political developments in the coming days.

In the overall analysis, however, the events and happenings of March 2018 are only yielding one outcome: democracy might have taken a step forward but it has taken back two.

The writer is a member of staff

Published in Dawn, EOS, March 25th, 2018