Religiosity, National Ethos and Governance

“Jitna diya hai Sarkar nay mujh-ko, meiri ith’nee ouqat nahin,
Yeh sab terey Karram hai A’aka, warna mujh mey aisee ba’at nahin;
Zamana hum ko roak sakey, ith’na uss mey dumm nahin,
Zamana hum sey hai – zamaney sey hum nahin�
[Author not known]


Root Causes of Discord in

Society

Over the last few years, since 9/11 to be precise, our Nation-State has been subject to intense external pressures [political, economic, social and, at times, pseudo-military] on account of the varied nexus of our people with their Faith. Now, the unfortunate tragic ‘happenings’ of Bajaur and Dargai – the “tragic� is non-judgmental – have truly brought Pakistan at the “cross-roads of history�.

We have:
• A majority generally ‘religious’ in differing shades of practice and beliefs [all religions];
• A sizable few that is inclined to being ‘religiose’;
• The ‘fire-brand’ minority – albeit, the more corrosive and forcefully coercive in propagation of their ‘beliefs’. This motley group of intolerant ‘religionists’ is committed to explosive ‘religionism’; remains substantially deficient in understanding of the Faith; is prepared to be “martyred� for ‘causes’ with which they have tenuous links; and is heavily financed by some very radical elements in western society/countries, drug-dealers, arms merchants and misguided ‘elders’ of two dominant Islamic ‘fiqahs’. They are internationally perceived as ‘jihadis’ or ‘islamists’ and, sans mea culpa, the groups that have targeted a few western countries. They have also embroiled a few Muslim countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular, for venomous mayhem and/or very dangerously undesirable activities.
• A band of core ‘minders-planners’ [termed ‘islamists’ or ‘islamo-fascist’ by the heedless – and myopic – functionaries/neoconservative members of GWB’s Administration. After the mid-term election rout of Republicans, these very vocal and enthused pro-‘War on Terror’ acolytes have suddenly turned tail on the hapless GWB!]. These persons are zealously primed to bring about ‘retribution’ for what they consider as ‘excesses’ committed by state functionaries under duress or influence of USA.

[In a different genre, and under somewhat diverse international political structuring, the threat of ‘islamism’ (many degrees lesser than the term ‘islamist’ now in vogue by the same power-wielders!) was defined as an “arc (or ‘crescent’) of crisis�, with the fulcrum resting astride the great mass of the Hindu Kush – Koh-e-Sufed barriers viz. the frontier regions of Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran (to some extent)]

Pakistan is also, unfortunately, afflicted with internal strife fomented by outside influences, causing deep fissures in our social, ethnic and class structures. The factors inflaming individual/community passions leading to strife, are the same religio-ethnic schisms born of distorted perceptions, and imbalance in the fundamental understanding and practices of not only the Faith, but also the ‘national ethos’ that had been eloquently stated by the Founder of Pakistan in his address to the Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1948.

The feudal-tribal-patricidal nature of politics in our Country, also ensures that personal-communal-national functioning shall be ever subject to these imbalances and traumatic distortions. Political immaturity, personalised administrative functioning and the selfish nature of the ‘me/we’ syndrome, have undermined the established parameters of ‘good governance’. The contending ‘influence brokers’ and ‘influence wielders’, are in tandem to strengthen their hold on state power and the national destiny. In this never-ending ‘push-pull’ to be on top; to apportion off the spoils of government and pass on the ‘golden spoon[s]’ down the genealogic-generation lines, is what is causing repetitive failures of governance, injudicious administration and injustice. Apart from the cataclysmic weakening of the foundational moorings of One Nation-State, it is a major cause of international opprobrium.

Our Country is labeled a “…terrifying country…�, “….dangerous place…� and a “…Muslim nuclearised …failing state…� by western public opinion-makers. To which is added “militarism� of State apparatus and institutions. Pakistanis are hounded in many western countries, somewhat more than the other Muslim residents/expatriates.

The ‘spoilers’ within the country now have sufficient cause to take unctuous satisfaction in quoting these ‘opinions’, and the terrible heinous activities of the misguided [Pakistani-origin parents] youth, to bolster their ferocious calls for the ‘heads’ of whichever government/party ‘in-being’!


“A Country in search of a Nation� [Quote from Ayesha Jalal, ‘The State of Martial Rule’]

It may not be as depressing as coined by Ms Jalal. But the impression of an “unstable……frightening and dangerous� Pakistan is not something to be brushed aside or rubbished. The above-quoted blunt-language expressions are in a recent ‘Survey of Pakistan’ [The Economist, August 11, 2006] – not for the first time, and reflective of similar sentiments by many other reputed papers/journals [albeit, founded on some old prejudices and usual churlish rhetoric reserved for Pakistan!]. In milder form, and somewhat more philosophically hopeful terms, it is also what a majority of unbiased, moderate-thinking and concerned Pakistanis have been feeling/stating/writing for the last 2 – 3 years.

A pragmatic review of the structure of State and form of governance is needed. In any case, with the situation now obtaining in the political climate of our Country-State, it may be high time to revitalise judiciary and rule of law; enable better and fair administration without resort to culpable negligence or aggrandizement; render an equitable ‘nation-state’ ethos, with no let or hindrance to/for any community/group/region; and, ripening of a ‘Pakistan-first’ system of governance. By all accounts and the welcome recent ‘suo moto’ proceedings/cases and decisions, the Supreme Court, particularly the Honourable Chief Justice, seem to have set the direction and pace for this fundamental ‘re-vitalisation’ of our ‘National Aims and Objectives’.

More than anything else, there is need to reinforce the raison d’etré of our Nation-State. A portion of the stirring speech of Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan may be remembered:

“Mr. President, it shall be appreciated that this is not the flag of any party or group. This flag is the flag of the State of Pakistani nation……the State of Pakistan which would be a state where no one would have any special privileges, no particular class of people would have special rights, nor would the interests of any particular group of people be given preference over the others. This would be a state where every citizen would have the same rights and the same opportunities. It would be a country where all people would have equal privileges and those who claim equal privileges would have, as citizens of the country, to fulfil all the legal obligations equally� [Pakistan’s first Prime Minister speaking when presenting the Pakistan Flag for approval by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly session, 11th August, 1947]

The muted but generally popular opinion is for the Islamic system which is the essence of true democracy; that which has been Revealed/Endowed by The Almighty Creator through Quranic injunctions, guidance/practices of our Prophet [PBUH] and that put in place by the Al-Rashidun, especially Amir-al-Momineen, Umar ibn’e Khattib [RA].


Crises of Confidence and Rationale

A singular failure of our majority population is the inappropriate [maybe also ‘improper’] understanding of the ‘contours of the system’, as practiced by our Holy Prophet. Not only that, but also an irresolute conflict between 'doctrinal' religion and the propagated 'teaching' of religion. This has been propounded by some State organs [somewhat on the decline now, thankfully!], religious parties, scholars of differing schools of thought and, last but not least, many badly-advised or ill-motivated young persons, brandishing weapons. All these factors have been instrumental in causing deterioration of effective governance, fair administration and balanced judiciary!

Amongst the many drawbacks, some of the conflicts are:

• The passage of the ‘Hasba’ Bill by the NWFP Assembly’ despite strong reservations by a majority of the population there [even though ‘unstated’, through resentful silence]. We are well aware of the general malaise that afflicts our 'Deeni Madrassahs', more so in the NWFP, and the grooming of 'religious teachers' in the country. Holders of diplomas/certificates from such institutions being conferred the task of checking morality or working of government functionaries [some of whom may be elected representatives of the people!], and imparting religious, ideological or motivational leadership and guidance to the general public (particularly in the rural and lesser privileged urban areas), has already led to a much deterioration in the system. The ‘Hasba Bill’ is bound to cause a derailment of the administration, as also personal and community balance. Community and family elders have willy-nilly, or unwittingly, absolved themselves and their peers of any input in this major responsibility of nation-building and crafting young minds.

• More often than not, the 'teaching' of religion gets mired in the many conflicts between differing groups; settled questions of 'doctrine' become major flashpoints of discord. Discussion on Faith amongst Muslims leads to “…..all sorts of violent language and all kinds of exclusion; ……… It is precisely because religious morality and ethics are not interchangeable terms that one must demonstrate how one's religious morality is making one a more ethical person.� [Quote from an internet discussion on ‘Faith, Religion and Science’ by a few family members and friends]

• A major failure of outlook in those who forcefully propagate religion, which also permeates all walks of life to the point of abusive coercion, is that concerning a few aspects of morality: mostly related to baser instincts of gender relations. No sermons are made, nor steps taken, to ward off the immorality of ill-discipline, shoddy workmanship, poor work ethics, and the never-ending recourse to 'sïfÄ?rish' and ‘brâdïrî ties in public dealings, policing, revenue-collection et al.

• Inadequate interpretations of our ‘secular’ or ‘pious’ Islamic credentials, against the explicit desires of the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. What is profoundly enunciated in Quranic Revelations, and taught, practiced and propounded with lucid clarity by our Holy Prophet [PBUH], is more often than not subjected to offensive diatribe of one against the other ‘fiqah’ – which, by itself, is a major lapse of the fundamentals of Islam: “create not of yourselves different groups or divisions.â€? The failure in our [Muslim] psyche in accepting the purely ‘humanistic understanding’ of differing faiths and practices within the Islamic State – one of the pillars of Revealed Islamic doctrine – has lead to much bad blood and ruthless inter-racial convulsions. Even otherwise, there is much bandying-about of terms such as ‘secular Islam’ and “hârÄ?m secularism, modernity, westernâ€? etcetera. This is totally against Islamic precepts.

• Our particular problem and wayward obduracy [some Pakistanis’ ‘religiosity’!], is the stubborn inclination to be at permanent loggerheads with our ‘self’: there is no attempt to be rational. It is not that “we have become defensive against the West�. Nor is it “….. being afraid and the reason to be apologetic about something if it hurts us to the core and elicits a violent response from Israel or the west…..� [Quotes from an internet discussion on ‘Faith, Religion and Science’ by a few family members and friends]
The fall-out is stated below.

• The passage of the ‘Women Rights Bill’ by the National Assembly, and probable early assent into Law, has mitigated the somewhat negative impressions of the Government stance on many issues causing angst among a broad spectrum of Pakistan’s populace. Even many stalwarts of the ‘ruling’ Party, were considered a party to unjustified delays in reviews and/or elimination of discriminatory laws, under the guise of being ‘Shárïâh’. Many eminent jurists and thinkers have challenged the conceptual ‘Islamisation’ process set out during the era of Late General Zia Ul Haq; they consider most ‘Shárïâh’ laws/Ordinances not in confirmation with Quranic injunctions. The Government was seen as faltering, under pressure from the unruly extremists brandishing their ‘religiosity’, thwarting even some progress in redressing the wrongs being perpetrated on minorities and women. It would be now expected that swift progress on reviews of the other sections of the ‘Hudood Laws’, plus enforcement of regulations to finally eliminate the dreadful ‘blasphemy laws’, and the attendant ‘sardari’ and ‘jirga’ systems [swaara, karo-kari, honour killings etc.] tearing away the rural society of Pakistan, with consequential dangerous results and the rifts mentioned in the next point.

• The noble intentions of forthright, progressive modernisation [“enlightened moderation�] and economic betterment of the masses, has not been successful due to the continued sway and hold of feudal-religiose cliques. A major weakness in governance/public administration is the virtual submission to ‘vested interests’: effecting ‘political’ compromises and harking back to administrative systems that confirm Pakistan’s penchant for self-flagellation. The speedy regularisation of FATAs/PATAs and ‘special administration’ areas like Malakand, Gilgit, Skardu et al, as inherent parts of the State. [Vestiges of colonial rule, as a necessary ‘appeasement’ to protect British Empire interests’ vis-à-vis Russia!] The ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ is the loser: ‘states’ within the State, with ‘tribal maliks’/’warlords’ in domination [hand-in-glove with the PAs /APAs], will continue to be an anachronism across the un-demarcated/informal ‘Durand Line’ and Hindu Kush-Sufed Koh Ranges of Pakistan – Afghanistan. AND, despite the ‘Peace Pacts’, breeding grounds for the ‘wayward’, unemployed and ‘mind-programmed’ youth, to keep wandering the shadowy routes around the ‘killing areas’, seeking their place in paradise!

A fall-out of these shortcomings, bartering and weakness in governance-cum-administration, has been the tremendous loss of self-respect and self-esteem in Pakistanis. We have become inured to ‘political pragmatism’ leading to bad [inept, corrupt, unethical] governance and mismanagement of public, corporate and private entities/organisations.


Structuring the System – A Way Forward

The crisis is not insurmountable. Nor is there lack of ‘will’ within [and outside of] the State apparatus, or leadership at the top. The gravitas lies in the linkage between different contenders of power, as a co-axial of external-internal factors. We have it in us to create our own ‘times/society’ [‘zamana’] – not be subject to the ‘pull’ or ‘push’ of imposed ‘times/society’ [‘zamana hum ko roak sakae’?’]. A tentative beginning towards this end can – must - be made, now - with structured modifications: to the present form, nature and personae of ‘government-in-being’ and ‘administration machinery’. Period.

As a matter of fact, the ‘system’ being suggested further on in this article, was in vogue well before the advent of the Holy Prophet [PBUH], amongst the tribes of Arabia. Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] more or less formalised the system and, in essence, the form of governance and public administration as per Islamic principles. It was reflective of ‘democratic’ norms and oriented to the general uplift of society, community and nation. The contours of the ‘system’ were based on the three fundamentals of ‘Shárïâh’, ‘IjtëhÄ?d’ and ‘Shûrã’-ÃŽjmâ’. [One could say that this was a sort of ‘constitution’.] Based on this was the ‘TârÄ“Ä“qâh’, the methodology for structuring of State and Administration echelons i.e. the form of government [Khïlãfät] and the country’s political/administrative divisions with their functional structures.

[The real-politik ‘give-and-take’ of today’s ‘democracy’, so-called “parliamentary form�, is anything but ‘oriented to the general uplift’; it is more for the ‘collective good’ (sic) of a ‘chosen few,’ who have been �elected� and “mandated� by ‘the people! to ‘rule’ - or ‘misrule’!]

In hindsight, the unabashed insistence of the western countries/’human rights’ bodies, more so the Commonwealth, US Congress, EU Parliament et al, for adherence to their concept of ‘democracy’, is flawed and not in consonance with the culture, values and social moorings of our people. Our President and Prime Minister have taken pains to clarify Pakistan’s internal dynamics and needs for a ‘democratic’ dispensation, crafted to our national ethos and needs. We have to adapt to the plurality of our cultures and diverse ethnicity, within the overall parameters of a vibrant Islamic State.

[A few years ago, I had taken issue with the negative assertions of ‘The Economist’ on aspects of Islam, particularly the democratic norms of the Islamic system of governance/administration through ‘consultative consensus’ (“Islamic democracy� coined by Bhutto!), suggested below. As may be expected, the staff response was a rebuff on my assertion. (‘A Survey of Islam’, The Economist, 6th August 1994) A similar communication to TIME on that magazine’s few ‘ingenuous’ surveys/analyses of Islam (16th April, 1979, 15th June, 1992 and 13th September, 2004) was not even acknowledged]

With this preamble as a premise, a few thoughts are stated on measures to eradicate our weaknesses and strengthen our resolve in matters of ‘faith/religiousness’, ‘state structures’, ‘governance’ and ‘social, moral and civil values’. [May Allah forgive me lapses in understanding]


Constitution and Governance

First Cause: Setting out A Fresh Constitution

There is urgent need for a review of our Constitution covenanted in 1973, despite the sharp retorts of ‘naysayers’ - who have been the more rampant violators of this compact! The angst of these pseudo-democrats – ‘traditional parliamentarians’! – is unjustified. The shenanigans of lofty democracies - the ‘mother country’ of ‘parliamentary democracy’, England/UK; the ‘biggest democracy’ [area-wise], also the world’s powerful ‘godfather’ and ‘champion’ of ‘democratic and human rights’, USA; and the ‘largest democracy’ [population-wise], India – have been duly exposed in the full glare of modern media’s no-holds-barred reportage.

It would be futile to carry out any comparative assessments of these ‘democracies’ with Pakistan – suffice it to know what some eminent ‘westerners’ had to say on ‘democracy’ and ‘Islamic form of governance’:

“Democracy passes into despotism� [Plato]

“Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many, for appointment by the corrupt few� [George Bernard Shaw]
“Thus, most of the values and norms which are now taken as ‘core values of democracy’ were spelt out by the Holy Quran more than 1,400 years ago. These values are ‘timeless’ because these reflect the very basis of ‘humanism’. According to Professor Brifault “the ideal of freedom for all human beings, of human brotherhood, of equality of all men [persons] before law, of democratic government by consultation and universal suffrage……find their ultimate inspiration and source in the Holy Quran (Making of Humanity)� [Quoted by Haider Zaman, DAWN, June 23, 2006, “Values laid down by Islam�]

A brief of elements constituting ‘Islamic Democracy’, is necessary to enunciate the framework on which the system of governance and functioning of administration were based. These are:

• Shárïâh. The ‘Shárïâh’ being a composite of the Divine Guidance [emanating from Revelations in the Quran]; the Prophet’s [PBUH] ‘hädÄ“Ä“s’ [frequent discourses on personal, community and public matters/issues/dealings]; and ‘sûnnäh’* [the legal, functional, administration ways and means of the Prophet(PBUH)], during his lifetime. Even a cursory analysis of this would amply demonstrate that the Prophet’s vision – founded as it was on the Quran [‘fürqÄ?n] and other Revealed Signs through Hazrat Gibrail [AS], with Blessings of The Almighty - encapsulated ‘functionality’ and ‘lifestyles’, ages ahead of his time.

*[When it is suggested that Muslims should try to follow ‘the Sûnnäh’, it certainly does not refer to the Prophet’s [PBUH] usage of honey, dress code, facial appearance or inclination to a certain style of head-wear. The penchant for ‘Taliban’ to enforce such personal likes/habits as ‘sûnnäh’, has been one of the dreadful heresies in the troubled, militants-sanctuary areas of Waziristan - and now visible in ‘settled’ areas i.e. Darra, Khyber etc]

• IjtëhÄ?d. This means intellectual endeavor to seek the solutions of day to day matters. It would imply, and is accepted as, ‘personal or individual inquiry seeking awareness on any matter or happening which would lead to opinionated judgment. IjtëhÄ?d is that the Quran has given us fundamentals, but we must interpret these fundamentals wisely in accordance with the spirit of the times in which we live. IjtëhÄ?d or rational enquiry is not permissible where there are clear and lucid ‘Injunctions’. It is only permissible in their relative interpretation. For instance, the five daily prayer times are obligatory in Islam [clear and lucid ‘injunction’!]. This means that even if all Muslim clerics and the entire Ummah decided through consensus to say prayers only twice a day, this would be regarded as ‘against the Revelations’, a sin. However, ijtëhÄ?d could be used to discuss the method of offering these prayers in differing situations, as well as the method of performing other rituals. This is the reason the Quran lays much stress on the need for ‘rational analyses’. [My construct, based on explanation of meaning in text answer to a query on ‘IslamOnline.com’, April, 2004]

• Shûrã and Îjmâ. The original meaning in classical Arabic is “to extract honey from hives�; one of the secondary meanings is “consultation and deliberation� According to this purely linguistic meaning, ‘Shûrã’ could be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation, firstly, among those who have an interest in a matter on which a decision is to be taken; or, secondly, amongst others who can help them to reach such a decision. [Taken from a text answer to a query, on ‘IslamOnline.com’, “Shûrã and Democracy: A Conceptual Analysis�,04/Feb/2002, by Mufti Yusuf Al-Qaradawi]. Îjmâ [agreement or consensus after the consultation and deliberation] would then be a natural corollary to the Shûrã, and a very ‘democratic’ means of disposal of ‘parliamentary business’!

• Târēēqâh. It may be taken as the methodology, ways and means of governance and statecraft i.e. what may be considered as the ‘Rules of Business’. As far as the official matters of public administration are considered, the ‘târēēqâh’ would be comparable to rules, procedures and applicable provisions of routine civic functioning; or matters affecting individual/community personal, social and general issues of daily occurrence or need, like utilities, public transportation, public halls, social facilities etcetera. [My construct]


What is ‘do-able’

A start in this direction is suggested: an unflinching adherence to the 7-point ‘National Deliverance Programme’, enunciated on 17th October 1999 by [then] ‘Chief Executive’, General Pervez Musharraf. This ‘Programme’ [if one may call it as such], was, perhaps, a stirring call for a ‘national charter’ in the spirit of ‘change’ . It found immediate and tremendous appeal to all walks of life, within all classes and every strata of citizenry. [Except by those who had been, and most likely to be, dispossessed of ‘pomp’, ‘pelf’ and ‘power’! The ‘Charter of Democracy’ recently in the news – containing certain very lucid, pertinent and remarkably prescient clauses - seems to be a mirage and one of those ‘limelight’ doings of ‘behind-the-scenes’ bartering!]

By all fair appraisals, Pakistan has been more democratic [as per our Islamic heritage] under the present dispensation, and Ayub Khan’s ‘military-cum-basic democracy’, with forward momentum on the national economic and development fronts, than the ‘loot-plunder’ and ‘bey diyanat-darri’ appeasement of the many ‘political’ [mis]governance[s] over the last 59 years! However, setting aside these continuing controversies, it is wholly pertinent and very apt to accept the ‘Charter of Madina’ [or ‘Constitution of Madina’ / ‘MÄ“Ä“sÄ?q-e-Madina’] as a beacon for setting out a fresh Constitution; or, review the 1973 document to bring it in line with the suggested requirements afore-mentioned. These are being frequently suggested by quite a few political persons, a couple of major political Parties – and many media columnists of repute.

[Not being a ‘qualified’ constitutional, legal person or even a ‘closet’ politician, the language in the next section, may appear to be naïve, simple and too prosaic, somewhat at odds with the ‘purists’ of the political-legal fraternity. In fact, it may ruffle quite a few feathers – not least those of the ever-fresh constitutional wizards available to every government or ruler ‘in being’!]


Enabling Provisions of the Constitution

The 7-point Programme is a revisionist statement setting the foundation for a fresh ‘national compact’. It has the means to re-set the foundation for a truly ‘Islamic’ State, with all the caveats of an ‘Islamic’ form of governance/administration fashioned by the Holy Prophet [PBUH], and rolled out over the periods of the ‘al-Rashidun’. The vision of Quaid-e-Azam, as also the essence of what he conjectured as a “secularâ€? Pakistan [the ‘axed’ portion of the Quaid’s address to the First Constituent Assembly, has been, thankfully, ‘restituted’ in the official record!], was nothing else but a resonance of the form of ‘Muslim [Islamic] State’ as devised by the first four KhâlïfÄ?s, particularly Hazrat Umar [RA]. Let me also dare to suggest that, personal egos and petty-mindedness was why it took nine years for the first of Pakistan’s Constitutions – the 1956 one - to be finalised.

“We inscribed for him upon the tablets all kinds of exhortation and clear explanations of all things (and said to him): ‘Observe these steadfastly and enjoin your people to observe what is best for them ……’ � - [Surah Al A’raf: 145]


A listing of the points stated in the Chief Executive’s address to the Nation, is given as a gentle ‘reminder’:
A. Rebuild national confidence and morale.
B. Strengthen federation, remove inter-provincial disharmony and restore national cohesion
C. Revive economy and restore investor confidence.
D. Ensure law and order, and dispense speedy justice.
E. De-politicise state institutions.
F. Devolution of power to the grass-roots level.
G. Ensure swift and across-the-board accountability.


After outlining the points, it had been stated: “Good governance is the pre-requisite to achieve these objectives. In the past, our governments have ruled the people. It is time now for the governments to serve the people. �

[Unfortunately, we continue to be ‘ruled’! With the added indignity of an uncaring law and order edifice, iniquitous justice and sufferance of mal-administration; all compounded by incompetence and gross corruption. Leave alone the myriad stories of oil, sugar and cement scandals, the misery that has befallen Karachi – the premier city, the revenue-bank of Pakistan - over the past three months of shattered infra-structure, inordinate delays and foul-ups in construction and/or execution and colossal loss of trust, is sufficient cause to want a ‘new’ system that will cater to ‘serve’ the people!]

A few voices have been heard concerning ‘Islamic’ in the name. I believe that the name of our country/state, ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, is absolutely in line with our ideology, national muse and future direction. Any ‘re-thinking’ on this would be totally unjustified.

There should be no quarrel with the ‘Objectives Resolution’ as the ‘Preamble’ to the Constitution. As a matter of enlightenment, the ‘Preamble’ could be expanded to re-affirm the principles of religious tolerance and inter-faith harmony displayed in the ‘MÄ“Ä“sÄ?q-e-Madina’.


Suggested Methodology for Review

The existing Parliament, by consultative consensus or ¾ majority, could nominate a ‘Chamber of Eminent Elders’ by ‘Decree’. This ‘Chamber’ would assume responsibility for review and reformation of the existing Constitution or set out a fresh Constitution. [However, a fresh Constitution may be neither practicable nor feasible – or even desirable!]

The ‘Chamber’ should be constituted from amongst notable and reputed persons from politicians, judiciary and legal fraternity [the persons from the ‘legal’ background should be ‘unblemished’, free of association with any political party or military rule], armed forces, civil services and academia. Representation from professional organisations/associations i.e. CPNE/APNS, FPCCI, ICAP etc, as ‘participatory’ observers may be very desirable.


The ‘Chamber of Eminent Elders’ could be given a time-frame of up to three months for this assignment. Thence, the ‘covenants‘ of the Document suggested are:

• The first and foremost requirement is to have clearly stated ‘National Aims and Objectives’. The existing statements may be re-stated in line with the suggestion of ‘Islamic’ nuances of democracy.

• Elaboration and statement[s] of the ‘lynch-pin’ Nation-State principle given by Quaid-e-Azam: “Unity, Faith and Discipline�.

• Enabling and enhancing individual, community and national ‘Self-Respect’ and ‘Self-Esteem’, as a function of State.

• Explicit and implicit averment of the equality of all citizens, the rights of individual freedoms, work and unimpeded access to justice under restraints of Islamic code of ethics, morality and society’s rights; guaranteed by the State through the original covenant of every Muslim i.e. the Shâhãdät, Allah as Witness [and Protector]. [Surah Al Ana’am: 19]

• Provisions of the existing Constitution, except those relating to the structure of State, Form of Government and those impinging on individuals’ religious practices and beliefs. Such provisions of the existing Constitution should be annulled e.g. declaring any group or community as ‘non-Muslim’; or the many unjust and unwarranted laws on blasphemy and ‘ridiculing faith’ et al….

[It is beyond human capacity or understanding to judge the Faith of another human being. This is expressly prohibited by The Final Arbiter, the Almighty, Omnipresent, Creator through many Revelations - prohibiting even the Holy Prophet. It is not in our knowledge or understanding to declare anyone as being outside the pale of any Faith or Religion. It is only Almighty Allah who will judge the ‘dÄ“Ä“n’ and standing of a person as a ‘mômÄ­n’, ‘müssâlmÄ?n’ or otherwise.]

• Relevant points from the CE’s address to the Nation of 17th October 1999 [7-point Charter]; and CE’s address at the inauguration of the ‘Convention on Human Rights and Human Dignity’, in Islamabad, October 1999.

• Relevant points given in the ‘Charter of Democracy’ signed by Ms Benazir Bhutto/ Mr. Nawaz Sharif, and affirmed by some other political parties/groups. Only those points which are for the common good and/or national betterment, without any prejudice or party/personal interest.


Structure of State: Governance and Administration

Form of Government

[“The cynicism I face today in advocating alternatives to the parliamentary form of democracy, has a tip dipped in arsenic� – Iqbal Mustafa, “Myths about the presidential system�, column in ‘The News on Sunday’, October 2nd 2005]

The Lahore Resolution of 1940, Pakistan Resolution as it came to be known, is not exactly divine revelation. It does specify [my layman language] that the “federating units� of different “nations and groups� will unify into one state, with common defence, finance…….et al. At the time of Independence, the ‘federating units’ were seven, two [FATA and NA] being loosely-knit entities that are still hanging onto that gossamer-thin veneer of perpetual separateness/promissory rights, purportedly given by Quaid-e-Azam [in a Tribal jirga!].

This is not about “…alternatives to parliamentary form of democracy….�. This is a very pious submission to enable true democracy; to strengthen the roots of democratic dispensation formulated more than fourteen hundred years ago. Terms such as ‘parliamentary democracy’ and ‘presidential form’ are contextual, related to the plain fact of ‘governance’ suited to the genus of the people. Ultimately, it is that which achieves the ‘national aims and objectives’ stated by the Constitution.

We have been experimenting with all sorts of systems trying to find that ‘holy grail’ best suited for our country and people. Alas, we have been ‘tinkering’ with the nation’s destiny without creating a solid edifice. One that will stand the rigours of ‘globalization’ or ‘pluralism’ in the world of the 21st Century. We have always had ‘rulers’ without benefit of ‘governance’. We forget Allah’s Exhortations to the Pharaoh [and Egyptian chieftains]:

“Walk not on Earth with arrogance [pride]; for thou cannot cleave the earth asunder, nor reach [rival] the mountains in height� - Surah Al-Isra [Bani Israel]: 37

We should have no qualms about thinking of a ‘Khïlãfät’ – one may see it as ‘presidential’ form of government. No quarrel with that: “A rose by any other name ….� As long as it serves the purpose on which our Islamic form of ‘democracy’ is based! Going by the adage that “less number, better administration�, it may be quite justified to curtail the number of ‘members’ at each level, with suitable increase in the population count as a representation basis.


Administrative Divisions of the State

Conceivably, there is nothing stopping the sub-division of the ‘federating units’ into 8,11 or 14 divisions. The benchmarks could be: population, economy, geography/terrain features, natural resources, cultural/community affiliations [if not in conflict with geography or terrain conditions], infra-structure and historical ascension. A rough guide may be suggested:

• Major urban centres, like the capitals of the four Provinces and Federal Area, could be designated as ‘state’ or ‘illâqãh’. All smaller urban areas of up to five hundred thousand within the vicinity should be grouped into this ‘state/ illâqãh’. As an example: Peshawer, Mardan and Charsaddah may become an ‘illâqãh’; D.G. Khan, Multan and Muzaffargarh could be another. And so on.

• Any city/town within this with minimum population of 500,000 could be considered as the ‘capital’ or ‘prime’ city of the ‘illâqãh’. This may be waived where the total population of any ‘illâqãh’ has touched 1,000,000 and it is inhospitable terrain over substantial area; then the largest urban centre of 200,000 could be designated as the ‘prime’ city/town.

• Trans-riverine or mountainous terrain may not be designated as one ‘illâqãh’, except where there is very good existing infra-structure and communications network. Additionally, the trans-barrier areas should be cross-pollinated for economy and population ethnicity. Such areas could have linear divisions or accepted as a smaller ‘illâqãh’ than given parameters.

• If necessary, a quick referendum could be instituted to determine association into one or other ‘illâqãh’ – other parameters being considered.

• Each ‘illâqãh’ shall have the same equality and rights that are vested for the present Provinces; and to be promulgated as defined by the reviewed/revised Constitution.

• As in the existing Constitution, special development needs of the less-developed ‘illâqãhs’, would be constitutionally mandated. The concerned ‘illâqãh’ would have to show progressive betterment and achievement targets/goals in the social, education and health sectors.


Representative Basis

The Khïlãfät is seen as a ‘top-down’ system with a well-functioning ‘bottom-up’ government. It commences at the level of direct, intimate and frequent inter-action between the people and the immediate tier of administration i.e. the district/tehsil, ward, sector – call it whatever. The representation basis may be the same as for existing system: base qualifications of good character, without any criminal record or moral failing, and unencumbered with any bank loan default or ‘write-offs’ [this is very necessary, going by the last two decades of terrible ‘business failures’!] Some modifications may be necessitated to cut down on the numbers of representatives at each level:

• Ward. Could be based on 1: 5,000 i.e. one representative [‘Ijtëhadēē’?] for every 5,000 population of adults [18 years plus]. Up to 15 ‘Ijtëhadēēs’ could be the ‘hädd bändi’ for one ‘Committee’ in a ‘Tehsil/Town Shûrã’. One of the ‘Ijtëhadēēs’ would be elected as the ‘Committee Head [or ‘Käfēēl’], to represent the Committee at the Tehsil or Town Shûrã, all Käfēēls being present for voting. Offices may not be required for the ‘Ward Committee’ [the Käfēēl’s house or any local hall/school office/health centre hall being utilised for any meeting or discussion etc., except minimum support items for routine documentation, administrative needs etc, computer-based.]

• Tehsil/Town Shûrã. Between five [rural] and ten [urban] ‘Committees’ could form a ‘Tehsil’ or ‘Town’ Shûrã. It would imply a population of up to 75,000 [Tehsil] and 150,000 [Town] for each Shûrã, respectively. One ‘Chairman’ or ‘Sârbárãh’, and two ‘Deputy Sârbárãhs’ could be elected by the Käfēēls present, minimum 90% of the authorised/mandated number present and voting.

• Mâjlïs. One Mâjlïs for each ‘district’ of rural or urban area may be considered. Each slices of population of 75,000 [rural] and 150,000 [urban] should have a representation at the Mâjlïs i.e. the Sârbárãh of every Shûrã is also the Member of the District Mâjlïs. The size of ‘Mâjlïs’ would vary from 10 to 20, depending on the bifurcation of the Illâqãh/District into Tehsils, as per benchmarks given. A ‘Chairman’ would be elected by the members, minimum 90% of the authorised/mandated strength present and voting.

• A’alâ Mâjlïs. One at each Illâqãh, the Chairman of each Mâjlïs being a member of the A’alâ Mâjlïs. This would imply that each A’alâ Mâjlïs would have a membership of 20 to 30, depending on the number of Districts in that Illâqãh. Therefore, there is a compact for the Illâqãh Mâjlïs to ensure good and effective functioning. There may be a ‘Government’ of 5 to 6 Ministers in each Illâqãh, one of these being the ‘Chief Minister’. A Governor for each Illâqãh would be selected by the ‘Cabinet’ from the Mâjlïs-e-Shûrã, with the KhâlïfÄ? heading the Cabinet. Each nominee for Governor would be approved by 75% of the authorised/mandated strength of the Mâjlïs-e-Shûrã.

• Mâjlïs-e-Shûrã. This would be composed of 5 - 10 nominees from each A’alâ Mâjlïs elected from the eligible population of that Illâqãh by general adult franchise, further vetted by 75% of the authorised/mandated strength of the concerned A’alâ Mâjlïs. This would imply strength of 100 to 210 membership of the Mâjlïs-e-Shûrã. The total membership would then elect one ‘KhâlïfÄ?’. The Mâjlïs-e-Shûrã would also elect different ‘Councils’ or ‘Committees’ similar to what is now prevalent in the Parliament. The ‘KhâlïfÄ?’ would be free to choose a Cabinet from amongst the eligible population of Pakistan, in accordance with the set pre-requisites and qualifications for the concerned ministry or assignment. Each choice for Cabinet would have to be approved by 75% of the authorised/mandated strength of the Mâjlïs-e-Shûrã.

• Linear/Vertical Governance. The representative matrix suggested is focussed on a system that caters for continuity of governance. Therefore, there is a compact for effective and congenial governance, keeping the interests of all units/divisions/segments of the population at par. This is a major deviation and variation of the principle of true representation, with continuity of linear governance in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. AND, there is confluence of the interests of the federating units and Centre. [[Unlike the ‘breaks’ in the present system of governance, where the Local Government does not have any linkage with the Provincial governance; or where there is continuous rift and ill-feelings amongst the Provinces and the Centre.]

Eradicating ‘Religiosity’ - Enhancing ‘Faith’
Secular ‘Outlook’ and ‘Broad Vision’ – Not ‘Liberated Secularism’ or ‘Modernity’

“….it has become popular [sloganeering by the ‘religiose’] to claim that there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam. This claim, combined with the rejection of secularism by many contemporary Muslim [‘religionism’] activists, has led some observers [westerners] to assume that Islam espouses a kind of ‘theocracy’. However, this is not the case; the term "nomocracy" is more suitable to describe Islamic political theory. A theocracy is a state governed by God/Gods or those who claim to act on divine authority. A nomocracy, by contrast, is a state governed by a codified system of laws. The ideal Islamic state is one governed by individuals or bodies bound by Islamic law.�[Tamara Sann, “Political Authority in Classical Islamic Thought� on ‘IslamOnline.net’. My inputs in parentheses, italicized]

This is the crux of the Khïlãfät system of governance and administration. There is need for our religious schools and the concerned overseers, to teach and propagate the correct outlook – instead of blindly resorting to street violence and mayhem on the calls of their ‘leaders’ who propagate false creeds.

The decision of registering all madrassahs, madari institutes and an across-the-board rectification of their education/life-styles programs, must be done with much greater resolve, without any compromising or ‘exceptions’. Those places where any hint of ‘militarism’ or ‘controversial’ subjects or training is imparted, must be shut down permanently and the persons/organisations running these must be prosecuted and publicly vilified for defamation of Islamic principles [blasphemy?].

At the same time, it may be in the fitness of things to discourage and informally resist ‘libertarian’ social behaviour, immodest conduct and vulgar clothes in public places, as well as the media. We are bound by our culture, values and ethos, Islamic as well as intrinsic to every Faith’s basic tenets: ‘immodest’, ‘shameful’ and ‘outlandish’ have no religious mantle. [Even in USA, the administration of President Bush is trying to stop enactment of laws that are ‘immoral’ and ‘wanton liberation’]

‘Modernisation’ is not at odds with morality. The 'good' of all religions is the same: whether we call them "Islamic Ideals�, "Canons of Justice", "Asian Values", Islamic, Christian or Jewish. The cultivation of modernisation in thought and practice (as opposed to ‘modernity’, which may be disputable) had long been a clarion call of Allama Iqbal. We faltered in taking his advice. The Quaid-e-Azam had categorically enunciated the parameters of the Islamic state that was to be Pakistan, in his maiden address to the Constituent Assembly in 1948. We altered the text of his address. Time and again we keep falling prey to the divisive trends of false morality, and fail on the high road to modernisation. We have to check the drift and set our feet away from the running sands. [“The great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving" (Oliver Wendell Holmes)]


‘Righteousness’ over ‘Exhibitionism’

It has become de rigueur to start demonic and destructive rampages by the students of madrassahs and the religionism-inspired workers of many political-religious entities [classifying themselves as ‘Party’!], on the slightest provocation – even a minor administrative requirement as the ‘route’ to be adopted by a procession or ‘march’. This is totally ‘criminal’ and must be treated as such with serious resolve to penalize and effect rectitude. Cosmetic gestures of ‘registering cases’, ‘proclaimed offenders’, ‘suspended arrest warrants’ etcetera, are an unethical demonstration of bad administration; this causes deep frustration and further alienates the masses, who suffer the consequences of such destructive demonstrations.

It is a matter of serious concern that many ‘leaders’, whether in government, parliament, political/religious parties, business and public concerns, do not have a correct perspective of the ‘moral’ or ‘righteous’. Or try to ‘fudge’ their outlook for personal gain/glory! There is a blurring of ethics and/or integrity: the ‘absolute’ with that which are made ‘presentable’. Public figures, leading lights of the private sector, media and even intellectuals/intelligentsia, are on the pages and screens of every media, pontificating/lecturing on the virtues of living an ‘honourable’ existence and eliminating corruption, social wrongs and immorality!

We have it in us to sort out these ‘perspective’ divergences; as also unhindered understanding of ‘morality’, ‘wrong’, ‘logical’ and ‘reasonable’. It is everybody’s business if “…wrong is being committed in the land…�. There can be no ‘pragmatism’ in ensuring ‘righteous’ behaviour, or conduct and dealings that show obvious and disturbing ‘gaps’ in that which is ‘farcical’ from the ‘factual’; true ‘Faith’ and ‘Beliefs’ would NOT, or SHOULD NOT, be conditioned by outward displays of ‘religiosity’. We must rationalise our ‘understanding’ and ‘teaching/motivating’; whether ISLAM or any other faith. The ‘true’ spirit and nature of ‘HUMANISM’, ‘GOODNESS’, ‘PEACE’ and ‘RIGHTEOUSNESS’ is the same in every religion or culture.

It can only be said that, whether in or out of governance, every stake-holder in the Nation-State, has to set the standards, established right from the ‘dehleez’ of every home, school and place of worship.


Conclusion
"I feel humiliated to belong to a State with no outlook for the future, nor ambition;………..in which there is neither science, nor reason, nor beauty of life, nor real culture. This State holds me back and …………… I feel smothered as I suffer at being governed by……ignorant leaders." [Hichaim Djait, "Culture et politique dans le monde Arabe", quoted by Fatima Mernissi, 'Islam and Democracy’]

We in Pakistan have decidedly not sunk to such a level of despondency. But we – all citizens who are self-sustaining - may hide behind the curtains' helplessness, but must bear a measure of guilt for the poor state of affairs. "Democracy is a luxury of the literate" may be truer than we care to accept. ‘Bad governance' due to ‘culture of politics’ survives due to the inherent failure in our collective merit. We all crave our own personal lines of 'better', and 'keeping up with the…...' syndrome. This subverts the system, wobbles the edifice and provides grist for cronyism and other maladies with which our Administration ‘minders’ are wont to suffer from. Some years ago Khalid Hassan wrote of the 'The Holy Terror' (The News, 14 June1998) but can we deny the culpability of all of us in this? Pontificating by any and everyone is the sufferance brought on us because we stand to suffer: we willy-nilly would rather create the shrieks of the hyena pack in mock terror, than roar the dignified response of the disciplined pride.

There can be no doubt as to the primary requirement of obtaining the peoples mandate – universal suffrage, with the customary minimum age set at 18 years. Representation would be based upon the differing requirements of rural and urban needs i.e. a Tehsil Shûrã may not be able to muster as many ‘educated’ persons as the Town Shûrã.

The national response can only come about by a true and undiluted adherence to ‘Rules and Procedures’ (proper) of good governance. This implies that the people and the Administration (which includes any Government-in-being, Mâjlïs, Shûrã, Judiciary et al, for purposes of 'governance') must be as one in disclaiming any wrong, any deviation, any meandering from the rightful path. A motorist jumping the red tight is as much liable to be called an 'offender', as one who bribes the lineman for stolen electricity. A cell-snatcher or bandit; a kalashnikov-toting murderer, or a ‘religio-fanatic’ serial killer: all are criminals in varying degrees of violence; sinful and deranged persons, who have no place in any decent society. This is true polity and must be placed at the top of the ‘Review of the System’ being advocated.

Human Dignity and Respect are not commodities that can be generated by the Government or any Administration. It is in each and every one of us – criticism of governance, expressed or implied for the sake of buttressing arguments against “military rule�, is insufficient to tide over the failings of the other organs of State. The bleakness of the 'yesterdays' seems to be mirrored in the 'todays'; and the 'tomorrows' seem to be more so.

Finally, governance or administration as per principles of justice, fair-play and equality in the eyes of law. "A winner makes commitments, a loser makes promises�. Let us all make our ‘commitments’ today, now, for a better tomorrow and the best future our coming generations can have. The idea of an ‘Islamic Democracy’ is not new, nor coined by a despotic Ruler in a fit of sudden inspirational wisdom. It is a living, pulsating and ever-adaptable formulation weaved by, and with, the advent of Islam.

And, let every Pakistani pray the universal prayer, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian - even an agnostic:

‘O Lord, give us what is good in this world, and in the next; and keep us [away] from the fire of hell’ - Surah Al-Baqara: 201