Go back to people

Pakistan’s democratic process has been chaotic and interruption-prone, often in need of a circuit-breaker. In the current political impasse, one wonders whether there is a constitutional way out-–one that is agreeable to both sides-–that can prevent the still-fragile democratic system from tripping and stumbling its way to self-combustion.
But the 1973 Constitution, in its current form, does offer a shock-absorber to the political frenzy out there. Sorry, 58-2(b) is, thankfully, no more. No, we are not referring to provision for judicial intervention either. The solution is sitting in rather plain sight.
Amending Article 48, the clause 15b (iii) of the Eighteenth Amendment Bill (which passed in April 2010) stated:
“…If at any time the Prime Minister considers it necessary to hold a referendum on any matter of national importance, he may refer the matter to a joint sitting of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and if it is approved in a joint sitting, the Prime Minister may cause such matter to be referred to a referendum in the form of a question that is capable of being answered by either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’…”
The government must consider this option. The wholesale ballot audit-–one of the major points of contention-–is a humanly impossible task to accomplish in the short-term due to technical intricacies and the scale. There are about 850 constituencies involved, and even if one constituency is examined in one working day, it will take over three years to audit them all.
And there is no precedent that any such experiment was undertaken successfully in any democracy recently. So, neither of the parties can find a way to prove whether industrial-scale rigging took place in the May 2013 polls. What option do we have in the face of intransigent demands and their makers?
There are, of course, pros and cons to a referendum, which is generally held for a popular vote on a specific legislation or constitutional amendment or a geopolitical situation or a local-level issue. Indeed the odds currently seem stacked against even the idea of a referendum in Pakistan.
For one, PTI and PAT probably won’t agree due to their trust issues stemming from previous elections. Secondly, constitutionally-speaking, result of this specific referendum-–unless it is agreed on as mandatory-–will not be binding on the PM. Nawaz Sharif may decide to remain seated even after referendum results suggest that the majority of the public wants him gone. And no one can legally dislodge him, for constitutional means to do so are completely different and well-established.
Then there are framing issues around the “question”. Designing the referendum question for a straightaway binary response has been deemed tricky and controversial across the globe. The contentious issue for the sit-in duo is that Nawaz should go. Simple alterations of that demand-–such as “Should Nawaz Sharif step down as PM?” or “Should Nawaz Sharif remains PM” or “Does Nawaz has the right to rule any longer?”-–will address the same issue but they can elicit different public response.
Another issue is the past referenda held in the country, which are generally viewed as widely manipulated. As per official figures, General Zia-ul-Haq became President with a 95 percent favourable vote in December 1984, whereas General Musharraf earned the right for presidency with a 98 percent favourable vote in April 2002.
What may also go against the idea of a referendum is the establishment and politicians’ aversion to setting a precedent after which the public realises contentious matters can be resolved this way as well. All sorts of issues may pop up, from new provinces, to resource distribution, to reformed insurgencies.
But, the potential benefits of a referendum are also there. A referendum, if held soon, would allow both sides a respectable way out. The vote will take the decision to the people, the real and final arbiters in any democracy. No more nagging about intervention from the army or the judiciary. On matter of “Go Nawaz Go”, each party is claiming that the public is on their side; a referendum will settle the issue till next elections in a civilized way.
The odds against referendum are also surmountable. So far, the modalities of holding a referendum post-18th Amendment have not been enacted. If the PM decides on this course of action, he can refer the matter to the Parliament, which can enact the law after consultation with all parties. Collectively, both sides can come up with an objective mechanism to set rules to frame the question, agree on a date (preferably three months), hold the poll and consolidate and disseminate the results.
There is no reason why Pakistan should not try out referendum. It’s a great way to let the people have their say on matters where no agreeable solution is in sight. Referenda have been happening all over the world—the Scottish independence vote being the most-recent example-–and the idea is in vogue at least since the early 19th century. Specific polls are being held across Europe, North America, and even in parts of Asia and Africa. Sovereignty/accession, tax imposition/abolition, devolution, electrical reforms, even legalizing marijuana, all sort of issues have ended up on the ballot measures recently.
It’s a uniquely difficult situation in Pakistan right now. Demands for Prime Minister’s ouster are unjust. But let’s face it: all proposals so far have been dead-on-arrival; protesters don’t seem to be going anywhere; and their shenanigans are hampering the government’s ability to function and the economy to improve. The way things are going, it won’t end pretty for anybody. Compromise is, sadly, not in the offing.
It’s no fun being Nawaz now, he faces an impossible situation. It’s all happening on his watch. If the economy tanks, buck stops with him. So he must consider this ballot measure, even if grudgingly. And his rivals must accept this, too.
If Nawaz comes out a winner, he would have the stomach and will to govern with vigour and regain the lost political capital.
If the verdict is against him, he would do well in the long-term by bowing down to the majority view. As for his rivals, their brinksmanship has succeeded in getting the majority of their core demands met. They must now let the public adjudicate this matter and let the country move on from here.
It’s time for a time-out!