A case for Constitutional Monarchy

“If I am King, where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because they think that when I speak, I speak for them.” A dialogue, immaculately delivered by Oscar Award winner Colin Firth in The King’s Speech got me thinking, who spoke for the people of Pakistan and whether there was a case for constitutional monarchy in Pakistan!
Does Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Gen. Kayani or Iftikhar Chaudhary speak for us? For the former two are far more parochial and for the later two the present constitution does not envisage any political role.
You think Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are our ‘national’ leaders! Think again, since the former runs to Karachi whenever feels cornered by the powers to be, and the later looks to his Lahori base and Riyadh for guidance. Both have miserably failed to establish themselves as national leaders. Sometimes it feels as if they intentionally try to be parochial. We the common people too are culprits. We have always treated the election day as a day of national holiday wherein we simply stay at home. Majority of us have never either voted for the PPP or the PML-N. Both of these parties have never represented the majority of us, thus leaving us unrepresented.
So who than speaks for us! Army! Even after four coup d’ etats and their devastating fallout on our society! No, the army does not. Can’t think of political leadership coming from the judiciary! The constitution does not envisage anything of sort for the wigs. So who represents us!
Lets face it, we Pakistanis’ are a fractured lot. We have failed to morphed into a homogenous group in all these years. Our chequered political history too does not give us any hope of a better and stable future. Ever wondered what is common between Shafeeq Baluch of Quetta and Shafeeq Butt of Gawalmandi Lahore! Apart from the fact that both face the East while praying, I can’t think of any other. History tells us that this binding factor is not reliable as both the East and West Pakistanis’ faced the East, and yet 1971 happened.
In Pakistan we have tried almost all sorts of governance. We are kind of a political laboratory. Why not have another experiment! Why not a constitutional monarchy here! Stammerer or not, King George VI spoke for the people of Britain, and not the elected Neville Chamberlain during WWII. The British people listened to him and felt hope in his words. Sure there will be many unknowns and apprehensions just like starting a new experiment. What could be these apprehensions?
The King (or Queen for that matter) will not be completely apolitical? Same concerns have been raised in Britain, whether Queen Elizabeth II had always been neutral and apolitical and had not secretly favored the Tories. After all she has all the makings of a Tory; old and presumably conservative of aristocratic background. But that didn’t stop Labour to form government in Britain under her reign on more than one occasion! How could one ever be sure that the Queen is a conservative? She is after all on Facebook now!
That the monarchy could be costly and a burden on our exchequer! The president house is nothing short of a palace and its annual budget! Well better left unsaid. In short, whatever the apprehensions, as long as we the people of Pakistan could have a well written and a balanced social contract between us and the monarch, we could usher in an era of political stability.
Just imagine a monarch whose powers are defined by the Parliament, with certain inalienable powers vested in him like the appointment of new prime minister, dissolution of Parliament and declaration of war, etc. Who himself and his family could not ever participate in politics either overtly or covertly. Who stands up and above petty personal politics. Who is one constant in our ever changing political scene. Person in whose personality we could find solace, especially during national crisis. Who would be the commander in chief of the armed forces and not some khaki. Off course, the sovereignty would still belong to Allah and the monarch would not be divine. Who could ever object to such an agreement! The key would be the social contract in which the monarch and his powers would be clearly outlined. It would be known to all as to what he can and cannot do.

Habib Jalib Lives On

Flowers are budding on branches, thats what you say,
Every cup overflows, thats what you say,
Wounds are healing themselves, thats what you say,
These bare-faces lies,
this insult to the intelligence,
I refuse to acknowledge,
I refuse to accept