Related Stories State versus Nation (contd)Talking the talkLet the healing beginA credibility deficitIt takes a Bhutto

 The opening session of Pakistan’s newly elected National Assembly has raised hopes and revived fears about the country’s return to democracy. The hopes are the result of unprecedented cooperation between the leaders of major political forces. The fears stem from Pakistan’s chequered history of political manipulation by an overarching establishment.

The politicians, notably PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari, have made it clear that they want a return to constitutional rule without conflict. Pakistan has one of its best chances of finding political stability if Musharraf can resist the temptation to follow the pattern of viceregal rulers dating back to governor-generals Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza during the 1950s.

There would be no confrontation if parliament is allowed to exercise its sovereignty. Musharraf may not want the elected parliament to vote on the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO), the decree that he used to amend the country’s constitution once again in November 2007. The majority parties in parliament argue that it is parliament’s privilege to examine the arbitrary amendments to Pakistan’s basic law.

When the country’s previous military rulers, from Ayub Khan to Zia ul Haq, allowed a phased return to democracy, they allowed the new parliament to vote on constitutional amendments proposed by them. By claiming that the PCO should not be debated Musharraf is failing to adhere even to that precedent set by his military predecessors.

Over the years, Pakistan has become a state that stands only on one pillar — of the executive branch of government represented by the security and intelligence services. The judiciary lost its standing by repeatedly endorsing extra-constitutional interventions and only regained its stature last year when the judges stood up to Musharraf’s arbitrariness.

Even now, Musharraf claims that his authority to amend the constitution derives from a Supreme Court ruling, confirming his desire to keep the judiciary subservient to the executive. There is no recognition of the basic logic that the judicature, which has the right to interpret but not to amend the constitution, simply cannot confer a right it does not have itself on someone else.

In the past, the military or civilian executive have constantly circumscribed the legislature in its functions. Political parties operated in the shadow of larger than life figures, slandered, jailed or exiled with alarming frequency. And then there were the ubiquitous intelligence agencies, hidden from public view but frequently seen pulling the strings in Pakistan’s complex political drama.

If the new parliament is to represent a new beginning for the country then political parties must be given an opportunity to operate without the constraints of the past. The legislature and political parties are

important institutions and, along with the judiciary and media, they are essential for Pakistan’s evolution into a normal, functioning democracy.

Given the result of the February 18 election, and the army’s critical decision to disassociate itself from politics, Musharraf simply cannot expect to rule Pakistan with a veneer of elected, albeit powerless, institutions.

Pakistan has aspired for democratic rule since its inception. It should by now have become obvious to all that various plans for controlled democracy have compounded Pakistan’s problems.

True democracy facilitates peaceful removal from power as well as the prospect of returning to it. Losing office while respecting dissent and accepting the role of national institutions is not as bad as risking everything. Instead of trying to impose or manipulate the fulfillment of his will by creating new polarisation, Musharraf should work with parliament and let the constitutional democratic process take its course.

The writer is director of Boston University’s Centre for International Relations haqqani@bu.edu