|
Senate as an institution
[DAWN] MONDAY's debate in the Senate on the 34-member Saudi-led alliance serves to focus our attention on the crucial role an upper house plays in a federation.Even though our Senate has existed since 1973, when Pakistain's first directly elected National Assembly enacted the Constitution, the upper house has not been able to play the role expected of a chamber that represents the constituent units and performs functions that serve as a check on the powers of the lower house, besides holding the government to account. Even though Britannia has a unitary form of government, the House of Lords, despite the clipping of its powers twice, still performs some useful functions like putting brakes on speedy legislation and enlightening the Commons by the quality of its debate. America has a powerful upper house. It not only scrutinises money bills but also deals with the appointments of cabinet ministers, besides having a crucial foreign policy role that includes the ratification of treaties and ambassadorial appointments. By having the powers to amend or reject aid bills, the US Senate plays a key role in shaping American foreign policy. In Pakistain, two military interventions since 1973 have militated against the evolution of constitutional institutions and done incalculable harm to the country in the domain of external relations. Resultantly, the Senate hasn't been able to perform the role expected of it. Ideally, the government should be bound to sound out the upper house on foreign agreements, treaties and defence deals -- indeed, the ratification of these should be contingent upon the approval of the Senate. In fact, the latter should be able to summon both politicians and military personnel holding high office to account for the state's gains and losses in its interactions with, say, Afghanistan and India. Posted by: Fred 2015-12-23 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=439501 |