Matters of legitimacy

IN an earlier article contributed by one of us in these columns it was argued that Pakistan is passing through a difficult phase, confronted by multiple challenges. And instead of being contained these are on the rise.
On the one hand, the population is growing exponentially with opportunities for a decent living not keeping pace with the rising numbers. And on the other, the gap between diminishing state capacity and people’s expectations is making this task formidable. The civilian institutions on which the structure of the state rests, are largely dysfunctional, contributing to general pessimism and demoralisation.
Maintaining order is a basic duty of the state but recent events are showing ominous weakness of this capacity. An insurgency is seriously threatening Balochistan, reflecting a failure of sermons on patriotism to create a sense of togetherness. This sense of alienation is fueled by a perception among the people of political marginalisation and lack of any effective control over their resources.
Elsewhere, sporadic, but lethal, attacks continue in the old tribal areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and are now spreading to D.I. Khan, Mardan and Swat. The situation in the riverine areas of upper Sindh and south Punjab is also alarming. Outlaws seemingly reign supreme with their area of operation expanding.
The ability of the state to provide justice has also declined. This is reflected in the judicial system’s diminished ability to enforce a contract, arbitrate a dispute or hold criminals to account. This has seriously undermined the rule of law, another pre-requisite of a functioning state.
To summarise, the overall structure of governance barely seems to be working and is not responsive to today’s challenges. While attempts at reform have been few and far between, even these have successfully been foiled by the bureaucracy.
The battle for rulership of the state presents an equally disconcerting picture. Irrespective of the text of the Constitution, the unfettered establishment effectively rules, through its active involvement in the functioning of all state institutions.
To provide itself a thin veneer of civilian respectability, a civilian set-up with anaemic roots among the people has been foisted on an unwilling nation. And to preserve this status quo and to thwart all challenges to it, the ECP has been commandeered, the Constitution defied, judiciary threatened, and parliament emasculated.
The result is that ‘presiding’ representative and supporting institutions lack moral legitimacy and general public ownership. The actions against the PTI and its leader Imran Khan have further estranged millions, who having lost trust in the integrity of the electoral system, and are discontented on being disenfranchised. With severe alienation already visible in Balochistan, this denial of a people’s mandate adds to the overall disaffection among the people with the state.
In our view, headway on issues of economy, security, justice and service delivery can only proceed if the basic organisational arrangement of the state has not just legal but also moral legitimacy. Today, the representative and supporting institutions lack this and therefore have no public ownership.
The lack of legitimacy is engendering resentment and alienation, making governance difficult. Several elements of administration require active participation of the people, without which any task, be it development or security, becomes much tougher.
This is particularly crucial in fighting an insurgency because it cannot survive without popular support. This is also true of terrorism in general. An existential challenge to the state is thus directly linked to legitimacy and people’s participation.
Legitimacy by most definitions would mean rule of law. And the fundamental law of any state is its Constitution. The legitimacy of the systems will come only from its rigorous implementation. While this may be a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one. The Constitution can still be manipulated to merely observe its form, and sometimes not even that, to deny popular will and infringe on fundamental rights.
The February election is an example of form over content and substance. While every part of it was manipulated, an appearance of democracy was maintained through minimum constitutionality. How can state institutions demand others to remain within the ambit of the Constitution while themselves flouting it?
An attempt is now afoot in parliament to introduce amendments to the Constitution with the purpose of undermining judicial decisions and packing the court with handpicked judges. The Supreme Court can strike these down being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, but this would mean a standoff between different organs of the state. This too is not desirable.
When we are suggesting a reset of the state it cannot be done through hostility and stand-offs. A realisation has to dawn on all stakeholders, and particularly the establishment, that the path we are on cannot be sustained. The way forward has to be collaboration not confrontation. All stakeholders need to sit together and chart a new course. Only then will there be a chance of moving forward.
A lot needs to be done but to begin with we have to ensure legitimacy. It means a recognition of people’s right to choose their representatives, and thereby who should govern them, through a free, impartial and transparent election. This has to be accompanied by the acceptance of results and a peaceful transfer of power.
Every state on the rise has been able to cross these two hurdles. We have almost never done so. This mindset has to change. Only then it would be possible to commence the long process of renewal.
Admittedly, sustained support for civilian institutions will only become ingrained from improved performance. To date the record of matters essentially in the civilian domain hasn’t been inspiring. Examples include the poorly negotiated IPPs, the quality of education delivery and the massive losses of state-owned enterprises. But, to begin with, the fundamental question of legitimacy has to be resolved before moving forward.
Shafqat Mahmood is a former federal minister.
Shahid Kardar is a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.
Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2024