Armanshahr Foundation, is pleased to invite you to its 52nd (year IV) public Seminar GOFTEGU, a bridge between the elite and the citizens, to be held in cooperation with the Foundation for Culture and Civil Society.
In the run-up to the parliamentary elections, Armanshahr Foundation is organising a series of Goftegu debates under the heading of “Face to Face”, as in the previous period prior to the presidential election, with the aim of establishing direct dialogue between the citizens on the one hand and the candidates and the officials on the other.
Face to Face: From First Parliament to Second Parliament:
A critical overview of the parliament’s structure and function in Afghanistan
Speakers:
Dr. Davood Moradian, Director of the Center for Strategic Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mir Ahmad Joyanda Parliamentarian , Mr. Mohammad Zarif Azhar, Professor at the Faculty of Law and Political Science Kabul University, Ms. Sabrina Sagheb, Parliamentarian
Moderator: Rooholamin Amini
Date & Time: Thursday, 24th June 2010, 14 hours
Venue: Foundation for Culture and Civil Society, Deh Afghanan, Salangh Wat, across from Kabul Province Police Station
Contact Tel: 0779217755 & 0775321697
e-mail: armanshahrfoundation@gmail.com
Seminar held in Dari
PLEASE BRING THIS INVITATION OR ITS COPY
This Programme is supported by the European Commission. However the programme is the sole responsibility of Armanshahr Foundation and does not reflect the Commission’s opinion.
Armanshahr Foundation/OPEN ASIA is a member of the International Federation for Human Rights
Fundamentalism prevailing in parliament is not less intensive than under the Taliban: A critique of the structure of national parliament
The second series of “face to face” debates, under the title of “From first parliament to second parliament,” continued with the 52nd Goftegu public debate – a bridge between the elite and the citizens – of Armanshahr Foundation on Saturday 24 June 2010 at the meetings hall of the Culture and Civil Society Foundation.
In the meeting that specifically concerned a review of the parliament’s structure, three major questions were asked to the panellists: Mr. Davood Moradian (director of Strategic Studies Centre of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Mr. Mir Ahmad Jooyanda (member of parliament), Mr. Mohammad Zarif Az’har (professor of Law and Politics School, Kabul University), and Ms. Sabrina Saqeb (member of parliament).
1. What status does parliament occupy in the Constitution of Afghanistan?
2. What is the relationship of the parliament to the Grand Council?
3. Why should there be appointed members in the House of Nation?
Mr. Moradian offered a glance at the definition of democracy, saying: Unfortunately, the concept of democracy in Afghanistan today suffers from a poverty of understanding and its use as an instrument. The democratic system as one system of governance is a system based on equality of all people and their freedom to determine their own fate. In other words, this system is centred on the ordinary person. This is manifested in the legitimacy of political power and the right of governance. The right of governance is only based on an agreement.
Holding elections, or having a parliament, does not mean a democratic system is in place; they are only part of a democratic system. A democratic system has different interrelated components and institutions. Individual accountability, existence of democratic institutions, e.g. an independent judiciary, free media, civil society, independence of the three branches of power as well as a political class believing in citizenship and democratic values are important components of democratic systems. It should be noted that you cannot have democracy with a belligerent system.
Discussing the performance of the first parliament, Mr. Moradian argued that three criteria may be used to evaluate the parliament’s performance: Representation, legislation and monitoring. The first task has been performed properly. All the intellectual, political and ethnic tendencies have their representatives in parliament: ardent supporters of justice and human rights, suspects of human rights violation etc. Unfortunately, the parliament has not had much success in the other two areas. There are numerous reasons for this, including absence or shortcomings of a political class believing in democracy, weakness of other institutions, e.g. the government and the judiciary, failure to uphold meritocracy and specialisation as well as lack of transparency and absolute rule of law.
Answering the first question, he said: “It is essential to evaluate our political system in its different components. Reconsidering the political system of Afghanistan and distribution of power, relationship of the capital with the provinces, relationship of the districts etc are issues that need evaluation and re-examining and should be discussed more in future. I believe the parliament has a proper status in the Constitution. The problem of parliament is not lack or shortage of legal tools and jurisdiction. The problems arise from enforcement of the law, weaknesses of the law implementation institutions and the political culture in Afghanistan, which is a combination of tribal, instinctive and Mafiosi culture.”
On the third question, he commented: A successful political system should have two important features; one is legitimacy of the political system, which requires the inclusion of figures and groups with different views in the system. The second is efficiency, which is the reason for the appointments to the parliament. Unfortunately, specialisation and meritocracy have not been given much consideration in those appointments.
Master Zarif Azhar said the Constitution has not provided a proper framework for the progress of parliament in particular for the House of Representatives. The Constitution, that was drafted with a particular ploy, regardless of its terrible writing mistakes, has mixed up two different forms of government, i.e. parliament and presidential systems, in such a way that has weakened the parliament. It has empowered the parliament to perform its tasks and stand up to members of the cabinet and the Executive to the extent of taking harmless decisions. In parliamentarian systems, parliament has three clear and specific tasks: 1) demanding accountability; 2) impeaching; 3) monitoring. This Constitution gives no powers to members of parliament to take action in regard to their monitoring and investigation. On the other hand, we have problems in the field of legislation. Our parliament lacks equality owing to inaccurate census. Our administrative divisions lack balance. It is a shame for a nation to estimate its population. How can there be justice so long as we do not know the size of our population?
According to Article 107 of the Constitution, it is within the legitimate powers of the parliament to reject or approve decrees (e.g. the Election Law), but when the parliament rejects it, there is a lot of controversy. The government infringes the Constitution in various cases and ignores the historical and serious decisions of the House of Representatives, but the latter is unable to take action. Not only the parliament, but the administration, the government, the judiciary, the academia and others do have shortcomings in Afghanistan, but the administration is seeking hand-picked obedient people. I can say with certainty that the next parliament will be to the liking of the government; worse still, to the liking of others. Our problem in Afghanistan today is not moral poverty, but lack of trust, absence of rule of law, arbitrary approach of the government and lack of people’s support for parliament.
As to whether holding jirgas or grand councils is an interference in parliament’s work, Mr. Az’har explained: In Afghanistan, wrong ideas are easily implemented. It is true that we had the jirgas in the past, but they are an outdated instrument nowadays. In the same field of decision making and jurisdiction of the jirgas, our House of Representatives, the provincial council and other bodies have jurisdiction now and that is sufficient. Why should we present uninformed persons with documents which they do not understand? Was it a proper resolution that was passed by the Peace Jirga? It was only a letter of gratitude to the donor countries. They have embedded two formulae in it in a quite smart way. One is that such and such country should leave its forces here permanently. Second, their presence should be legalised.
Governments have called the loya jirga whenever keeping them in power or a series of illegitimate decisions have been at stake. Throughout history, the jirgas have taken orders from governments and have not acted independently. This interpretation is not based on pessimism but realism. It is contrary to logic that a social institution should try to solve national problems. There is no legal foundation for it either. There is no clear mechanism for choosing members of those jirgas. Firstly, they should be elected. Even if it is necessary to appoint some members, the current provision for one-third of appointed members is too high. In the worst case, it may be possible to use members of parliament or provincial councils in those jirgas. However, it should be noted that the people have elected them as legislators or consultants not decision makers. Benevolent elders of yesteryear have become gun-wielders who rule the people by force. We can replace them through elections. As long as the ground is not ready for balanced and fair appointments, the easier way would be through the national parliament.
The next speaker, Member of Parliament Mr. Jooyanda, pointed out that Article 4 of the Constitution has given national sovereignty to the people and all the powers to the House of Representatives, and asked: The question is how far the parliament has been able to use its powers and how far the Executive has accepted the parliament’s powers? Despite its achievements, the parliament has had a bad performance, for instance in the case of the Amnesty Law or expulsion of Malalai Joya. These problems arise because criminals and traffickers are dominant in the parliament despite the presence of a group of intellectuals. Fundamentalism prevailing in parliament is not less intensive than the Taliban’s.
The other problem is that our parliament is not based on parties, but on persons and personal tendencies. The issue is not to have a large number of women. Many of those women do not believe in women’s rights. The women did not follow independent thinking and views on women’s rights and eyed the voting of some of the leaders in parliament, for example in the case of the Personal Status Law. On the other hand, people voted on the basis of ethnic origin and language and did not make conscious choices.
Regarding parliament’s monitoring task, Mr. Jooyanda said: Parliament has had more than 200 monitoring sittings, but none has resulted in bringing the wrongdoers to justice. It has performed very weakly in regard to its monitoring task and has failed. Article 158 of the Constitution requires the establishment of a committee to monitor the government’s performance, but there is no sign of it after three years. Parliament has not realised its responsibility of representing the people of Afghanistan either and has occasionally violated its own legislation. For example, it asked the president to pardon a rapist rather than his punishment under a law it has legislated. We have however received a pass mark in regard to legislation, irrespective of how far the laws have been compatible with freedom of expression, equal rights etc.
On the other hand, we have a despotic government that does not believe in parliament’s jurisdiction and our parliament does not take a specialised and professional approach. Unfortunately, a number of our MPs receive commission and parliament has lost its authority. It has acted in place of the Executive in contravention of the Constitution in numerous cases. The administration of the House of Representatives has operated on the basis of its own preferences. Parliament is not different from other branches of power. All three are weak.
Under Article 109 of the Constitution, parliament may not deliberate the Election Law or change it in its final year. However, Article 179 empowers it to reject or ratify a legislative decree. That decree on the Election Law was unanimously rejected, because parliament was not empowered to deliberate or amend it. Subsequently, the Upper House should have discussed it within 15 days, but it didn’t.
Commenting on jirgas, Mr. Jooyanda said: Afghanistan should move toward installing the democratic institutions. The Constitution has not empowered any other institution other than parliament to take decisions. On the other hand, the social structure of Afghanistan has changed in the past 30 years. We do not need the jirgas now that we have a parliament with two houses. Any representative who attends the jirgas is an affiliate of the economic and political mafias.
The last speaker, Ms. Sabrina Saqeb, said: One component of a democratic government is parliament and representation. Parliament is a combination of the House of Representatives and the Senate (Upper House), members of which are elected by the people and some of them are appointed by the president. The House of Representatives conducts two kinds of monitoring: In form and in content.
Monitoring in form is through direct election and representation of all groups, ethnic groups, provinces and districts. In this regard, the people’s choice was not made accurately and consciously owing o lack of knowledge and economic poverty. That left its impact on the content. On the other hand, absence of parties is a problem in our political system. Democracy without parties is meaningless and their absence weakens the parliament. The problem arises from the Constitution that has restricted the parties’ participation. Although it is a national charter, it can be amended including in respect of appointed members of the Senate.
Parliamentary representation is based on ethnic social structure. Despite passage of good laws, the achievements are not notable, because the rule of law does not prevail. People expect MPs to bring physical achievements and that has made MPs into social workers. On the other hand, the government thinks monitoring is geared to revenge and hostility.
Democracy cannot be achieved with one or two elections. We need to revise the Constitution to solve the problems in parliament’s structure. However, conscious and informed choices by the people would play a major role in having a strong parliament and advancing on the path of democracy.
Invitation
