Federalism – Laaltain

PML-N: A Reluctant Convert to Federalism?

While the ostensibly inexorable slump of Pakistan cricket continues, it has increasingly come to resemble and reflect the broader social and political behavioural patterns. One of the more recent woes of Pakistani batting line up is the ‘conversion problem’ – batsmen make impressive starts but fail to convert them into big scores. They get off to a decent start, show positive intent and then play an ill-advised shot just at the opportune moment. The result is often a dramatic batting collapse. The refusal to learn from previous mistakes is the only consistent feature of this batting line up.

The story of Pakistani politics is not very different. Take the style of politics of the Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. His previous tenure as PM was marred by confrontation with the army and the judiciary, thanks to his brash and ill-judged political moves. He did not believe in engaging political opponents and was particularly indifferent to the concerns of the smaller provinces. The end result was a military coup, Sharif brothers’ incarceration and then exile to Saudi Arabia. Nawaz Sharif had to wait for more than 13 years to return to power.

In addition to contributing to democratic consolidation, the PML(N) also showed some signs of having shunned its traditional Punjab-centric approach to politics and put on federalist cloaks.

When he took charge for the third term as Pakistan Prime Minister, many political pundits and observers hoped that Nawaz Sharif was a “changed man” and had learnt from the past. This optimism was not misplaced given the maturity demonstrated by the PML(N) in the opposition benches during the PPP regime. The PML(N) played a key role in developing ‘civilian consensus’ on protecting the country’s democratic dispensation against unconstitutional moves, thus in effect disavowing any direct or indirect military intervention in politics. In addition to contributing to democratic consolidation, the PML(N) also showed some signs of having shunned its traditional Punjab-centric approach to politics and put on federalist cloaks. Punjab’s role in the passing of the 7th NFC Award and Nawaz Sharif’s friendly overtures to the ethno-nationalists of Balochistan and Sindh before 2013 elections gave one sufficient reasons to believe in the more democratic and federalist outlook of the erstwhile ‘centralist’ PML(N). This perception was reinforced in the wake of the 2013 elections when Nawaz Sharif respected the mandate of the nationalists and the PTI in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa respectively.

However, ever since the PML(N) has come into power, it seems intent on spoiling the goodwill it has laboriously earned over the past few years. In contradiction to its earlier pro-federation gestures, the PML(N) has emerged as a “centralist” party with little regard for the rights and prosperity of smaller provinces. To begin with, the party’s stance on terrorism has mainly been determined by a concern to ensure the security of Punjab. It has shown high pain threshold for terrorist violence affecting other provinces. Secondly, the PML(N) has seriously undermined the political and fiscal decentralization introduced by the 18th amendment. It has created new federal ministries to carry out responsibilities in fields that were devolved to the provinces in the 18th amendment. Similarly, a number of federal bodies that now fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces have not been devolved (e.g. Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) and the Workers Welfare Fund). Additionally, the rule that the Council of Common Interests (CCI) should meet at least once every 90 days has not been followed.

In contradiction to its earlier pro-federation gestures, the PML(N) has emerged as a “centralist” party with little regard for the rights and prosperity of smaller provinces.

Finally, the ruling party has ignored the viewpoints of smaller provinces, especially Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, on vital issues related to the much-touted China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). First off, there is an acute lack of transparency about the actual route of the corridor, the development projects and the location of economic zones to be set along the route. The Ministry of Planning and Development website does not provide any detail of the proposed route and agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) signed between the two governments. Secondly, the chief ministers of Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who were conspicuously absent during the visit of the Chinese President, were not consulted. Not surprisingly, lawmakers from these provinces, especially Balochistan, have expressed serious reservations regarding the corridor.

A map given by the Wall Street Journal shows the proposed route of the corridor and location of energy projects. The CPEC consists of multiple routes, two of which pass through Punjab and one through Balochistan and KPK, with the later being the shortest of all routes. The Minister for planning maintains that work is underway on the western (Gwadar-Quetta-Peshawar) route and that it will become functional once it is ready. However, the honourable minister has given no time frame for the completion of the western route. There are multiple issues with this multi-route economic corridor.

First, there is no credible commitment that the western route will be developed quickly and made functional. Secondly, even if the commitment problem is somehow resolved, the western route is unlikely to become the main route upon its completion. Since the two eastern routes passing through Punjab will become functional way earlier, huge investments would be made and economic zones established along these routes by the time the work on the western route is complete. Consequently, it will be near impossible to relocate resources and investment to the western route passing through the barren and relatively insecure land of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

As far Balochistan is concerned, the corridor and the concomitant investment will only build extractive institutions benefiting a tiny elite.

Thirdly, the proposed $46bn infrastructure and energy spending plan is contrary to the principles of inclusive economic growth and equitable development. A mere glance at the map gives one the impression as if the territories west of Indus are not a part of the plan. Out of the ten odd power plants and energy-related projects, only one is located in the provinces of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa each. The proposed railway track is also likely to pass through Punjab. Moreover, while funds have been earmarked for the upgradation of Karakorum Highway (Havelian to Thakot) and Karachi-Lahore Motorway (Multan to Sukkur) and establishment of Lahore Metro Train project, no funds have been allocated for infrastructural development in Balochistan (barring Gwadar). The only investment promised in Balochistan is in Gwadar and that too is aimed at augmenting the extractive capacity of Islamabad. As far Balochistan is concerned, the corridor and the concomitant investment will only build extractive institutions benefiting a tiny elite. This focus on extractive rather than inclusive institution building is likely to accentuate income inequalities and regional disparities.

The CPEC offers Islamabad an opportunity to reverse its neo-colonial policies in Balochistan, FATA and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and help them come out of the conflict and poverty traps. The governments of Balochistan and KPK should mobilise the Council of Common Interests to get their reservations heard. The ruling party should use this propitious moment to bridge gaps in regional prosperity levels and embark on a path of inclusive economic development. Most importantly, it should learn from the past and capitalise on this opportunity to establish its credentials as a genuine federalist party. Otherwise, its fate is unlikely to be any different from that of Pakistan Cricket.

The Challenge of Federalism in Pakistan

Federalism can be defined as a system in which the power and authority to govern is constitutionally divided at two levels into two governing bodies, usually called center and province. In other systems, provincial units are named differently such as states and countries. It is one of the essential principles of democracy to decentralize the power from center to the constituent political units. Federalism also tend to expand functions, participation and government machineries by creating more units. The cases of countries such as United States prove that federalism may perform very efficiently and constructively to harmonize diverse economic activity and social pluralism. Indeed the US has outperformed many of the non-federalist countries in most aspects of state affairs. However, on the other hand, federalist institutions face certain challenges in different countries, especially in developing democracies.

In fact, when a state curbs provincial autonomy and try to maximize powers of the center, it may lead to disintegration. The separation of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, is the most suitable example.

Many argue that federalism may pave the way for weakening and eventual disintegration of a state because when a state (central government) gives autonomy to the provinces, separatist elements may take advantage of it which might eventually result in the separation. Such perception lies behind the growing tendency among developing countries to concentrate power at the central level. If we take the example of US federal system, we see that central government controls only the defence, foreign policy, currency, immigration etc. On the other hand, the federating units called states have sacrosanct jurisdiction in all other areas and over the whole state. In fact, when a state curbs provincial autonomy and try to maximize powers of the center, it may lead to disintegration. The separation of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, is the most suitable example. When West Pakistan curtailed the rights of Bengalis, including the right to rule, and concentrated the power at center (controlled by West Pakistan), Bengalis found themselves oppressed and eventually parted ways with the West Pakistan. In fact, decentralization may prevent a state from disintegration not vice versa.

Lack of accountability is considered another disadvantage of federalism. Critics of federalism argue that the central and provincial governments sometimes overlap each other’s functions or boundaries. Moreover, the undefined areas of responsibilities may lead to poor governance and instability. Consequently, it is difficult to hold government accountable because of systematic uncertainties. Such problem is being faced by a number of emerging democracies. In countering this argument, many scholars argue that the answer lies in a structural arrangement called dual federalism. Dual federalism, as opposed to cooperative federalism, means that the functions and powers of both governments are constitutionally defined and more clearly demarked. This may strengthen the process of accountability and increase efficiency.

The Case of Pakistan
From its inception, Pakistan had a rigorous form of centralism until the constitution of 1973 was adopted. Most notably, the 1962 Constitution made Pakistan a highly centralized state through the ‘one-unit’ system. Having a history of rigid centralism, the 1973 Constitution was a triumphant move for Pakistan’s fledgling federal system. The preamble of the 1973 Constitution ensures and directs federalism as the organizing principle of state. In 2010, a historic constitutional development took place in the shape of Eighteenth Amendment which stabilized country’s federal structure by devolution of a number of central powers and by guaranteeing autonomy to provinces. The constitution of Pakistan has lucidly provided a framework but, still, federalism in Pakistan is facing certain challenges.

Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, an eminent scholar, argues that Pakistan has a long tradition of centralization owing to factors such as perceived external threats and internal polarization. Even today, centralized institutions such as army and other ruling groups often try to maintain or enhance their powers over sub-units. The denial of making new provinces and administrative units is one such example of centralist mindset, despite the fact that new provinces or administrative units will eventually reduce the burden on central government.

The situation in Balochistan is another example of the outcome of denying decentralization. The centralist mindset would demand that separatist elements in Balochistan need to be suppressed. One may ask that what we have achieved so far by denying rights to the Baloch people. The answer would be, instability. In another rather different example, people in Gilgit-Baltistan want to be recognized as full citizens.

Both central and provincial governments must help the process of devolution according to the letter and spirit of constitutional provisions.

The level of trust and understanding among provincial governments on various issues is the cornerstone of federalism. Unfortunately in the case of Pakistan, one can observe severe disagreements and lack of trust among center and the provinces. For instance, Sindh demands an increase in its funds because Sindh government argues that Sindh generates significant amount of revenue, but in return it is not receiving its due share which was promised in the Eighteenth Amendment and 7th NFC Award. Similarly, other provinces also have their own reservations on resource-sharing. Another example of mistrust among provinces is that of the Kalabagh Dam. Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa strongly oppose the building of Kalabagh Dam, while Punjab supports it. This sort of disagreement may become a challenge for the central government in exercising its powers effectively and in regulating its units. Additionally, the Council of Common Interest, which was formed to solve issues among provinces, is also lacking in performing its functions.

Every country, whether unitary or federal, has some internal problems to cope with. A number of Pakistan’s internal problems can still be resolved through proper implementation of federal system. Both central and provincial governments must help the process of devolution according to the letter and spirit of constitutional provisions. Both levels of governments should adopt a harmonious and pragmatic approach in identifying their respective responsibilities. The federal institution in general, and Council of Common Interest in particular, need to be active and efficient in carrying out their role as assigned by the law. Such measures would diffuse tensions among the center and the province, also among those who demand new administrative units. This would also lead to positive changes in improving situation in Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan. Unless we take such measures, the democracy in Pakistan will not be able to take root.