What happened to PML manifesto

By Ashraf Mumtaz

ALTHOUGH the Pakistan Muslim League government did a lot in various sectors during its five-year term, which was the longest enjoyed by any set-up during the past three decades, many of the important commitments made in the 2002 election manifesto remained unfulfilled. While the ‘achievements’ of the government received adequate coverage when they were made, the unfulfilled promises have not been pointed out so far.

The manifesto had been given by the party’s then president Mian Mohammad Azhar, who had to quit the office immediately after the polls as he was defeated on both the National Assembly seats from Lahore that he contested.

The five-year tenure (2002-2007) was shared by three prime ministers — Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Shaukat Aziz — but they could not pay much attention to the manifesto. It appears as if none of them got a chance to have a look at the promises made by their party and which they were under obligation to keep.

The manifesto’s first chapter was on ‘Political Reforms’ and its first item committed the party to improving the performance of the government by taking various measures. The first measure was that legislation by presidential ordinances shall be done away with as this militates against the letter and spirit of the parliamentary system.

A good idea, no doubt, but it could not be implemented.

According to Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Kamil Ali Agha, 48 laws were made by the bicameral legislature over the past five years while more than 80 presidential ordinances were issued during the period.

Both the figures are sufficient to explain the ‘performance’ of the parliament and that of the president. These figures also ‘expose’ the authority of the legislators who proudly say that they remained in office for a full five years.

In its new manifesto, the PML will say that the president should have no authority to issue an ordinance when the Senate is in session.

Another commitment was to set up a special TV channel to cover the proceedings of the parliament live.

No step was taken at all for the purpose on a number of occasions the electorate would have liked to watch the performance of their representatives live, but like many of their other desires, this one also remained unfulfilled.

Another commitment made by the PML was: “All major policy decisions of the government shall be made on the floor of the parliament/respective provincial assemblies”.

Needless to point out that President Musharraf has been taking all major decisions, and the ruling party has only been rubber-stamping them.

The role of parliament was not what it should have been. In fact, no major decision was taken by parliament.

The promulgation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance has also exposed the say of the ruling party leadership and the helplessness of the parliament.

Many ministers have admitted that some 80 per cent of the cabinet members were opposed to the NRO, but they could not do anything to stop it. The NRO was issued only because it was a commitment made by President Musharraf.

Interestingly, at a news conference Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and PML president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said that the NRO was a political trick played by the government to outwit the PPP leadership.

The very same day the president’s spokesman said the presidency didn’t subscribe to what the two leaders had said.

Both Mr Aziz and Chaudhry Shujaat had to eat their words and let the dialogue process between the PPP leadership and the presidency go ahead.

That the overall performance of the PML-led government was not satisfactory also because its five-year term ended in the emergency rule, which divided the superior judiciary and imposed curbs on the media.

This also established the ‘ineffectiveness’ of the National Security Council set up by Gen Musharraf despite serious opposition from almost all parties. The NSC met quite a few times, but Leader of Opposition Maulana Fazlur Rehman, one of its members, always stayed away.

In the chapter for “Political Reforms” the party had also committed itself to enacting ‘conflict of interest legislation’ on business activities in cases where any interest pertaining to a member was involved.

No such law could be framed, and now the party’s new manifesto committee is inserting the clause in the new set of promises.

Once such legislation is enacted an industrialist will not qualify to become the minister for industries, a practising lawyer the minister for law and a banker the minister for finance.

The manifesto also committed the party to prescribing limits on the number of ministers and advisers that can be appointed at the centre and in provinces.

This provision was rubbished by the PML leadership. In fact, all records were broken as the prime minister and the chief ministers herded all their favourites in their cabinets. A ministry or a department run by one minister in the past was divided into several parts to accommodate as many people as possible.

In Punjab, for example, one minister in the past used to take care of food, agriculture and livestock. Now, four departments: agriculture, food, livestock and agriculture marketing have been created.

No legislation has been carried out at the federal or provincial levels to set a limit on the number of ministers.

The ‘Political Reforms’ chapter also committed the party to setting up an ethics committee for both the houses to monitor the conduct of legislators.

According to Minister of State Kamil Ali Agha, no such committee has been formed to date.

The PML manifesto dedicated a separate chapter to ‘Citizens’ Rights’.

It says: “Harassment of citizens by government agencies shall be considered an offence.”

Everybody knows that the commitment was not honoured. Secret agencies picked up an unspecified number of people from various places, citing no reasons.

The Supreme Court took up the cases of such people and a number of them were set free.

But the president did not tolerate the initiative taken by the Supreme Court. At a news conference he complained that the Supreme Court had exceeded its limits by taking up the cases of such ‘terrorists’. He alleged that the people freed by the court were involved in terrorist activities in various parts of the country.

The deposed judges’ argument that they set some people free because the government could not prove charges against them was ignored.

Yet another commitment made in the same chapter is: “The culture of police stations shall be changed to stop illegal harassment of citizens”.

Anyone coming in contact with police for any reason knows to what extent the government has been able to achieve this target.

Dawn 16/Nov/07