Islamabad, May 10; Releasing its report on Performance of the Parliamentary Committees of Defence and the National Security during the first 3 years of the 13th National Assembly of Pakistan, PILDAT has said that Parliament's oversight and accountability of the security sector will serve to strengthen and enhance Pakistan's national security and the absence of oversight is a negative trend that is hampering the process of institutional decision-making and national policy outlook.

The PILDAT report, the first attempt of its kind in Pakistan by an independent institution and prepared in the backdrop of principle of Parliamentary oversight of security sector, covers a period of three years, i.e., from March 15 2008 to March 15 2011 examining closely the publicly-available data on the work of the National Assembly and Senate Standing Committees on Defence and the Parliamentary Committee on National Security - the three committees charged with the responsibility of dealing with subjects relating to defence and national security.

Pakistan is engaged in an unconventional war. Our security is threatened, our troops and civilians are laying down their lives, our economy is wrecked by this on-going war and our sovereignty appears to be compromised. Our Parliamentary committees and especially the ones relating to national defence and security need to be more alert, active, vigilant and serious than ever before in discharging their responsibility of oversight. If human or infrastructural constraints are holding them back, they must get the necessary resources to do their duty, said PILDAT.

The absence of Parliamentary leadership in defining policy and overseeing its implementation is most stark is the present national security scenario. One is hard pressed to find any contribution or any role played by Parliamentary committees in any major security decision taken by the country. Both Parliament and the Government do not seem prepared to be in the forefront of defining what constitutes a national security strategy of Pakistan in dealing with this war that has no end in sight. The elected leadership of the people continues to abdicate its responsibility of leading the essential dialogue that can help define a winning and lasting strategy, believed PILDAT.

PILDAT believes that it is the job of Parliamentary Committees on Defence and National Security to have raised the question about institutional strengthening of civil institutions relating to national security. The security establishment will only accept the supremacy of elected civilian leaders in interpreting national interests and in laying down the broad parameters of defence and foreign policies if there is an effective mechanism for developing a national security system. There is, therefore, an urgent need to activate and strengthen Cabinet Committee on Defence and National Security to be chaired by the Prime Minister including Ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Finance and members; it is equally important that the Cabinet Committee supported by a permanent secretariat and think tank. Similarly, exercising even civilian control on defence and national security will not be possible without activating the civilian Defence Minister and the Defence Ministry.

Circumstances that have led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden and others on our sovereign soil by the armed forces of the United States of America have raised many questions on the role of the security agencies and the requirement of civilian and Parliamentary oversight over them, especially the supreme role Parliament needs to play in the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive and integrated counter-terrorism and national security strategy. It is essential that Parliament demands its right to be informed on security and defence related issues; both the military establishment and the foreign office keep referring to red lines that the US should not cross on cooperation on counter terrorism and the committees must demand details of all such cooperation that falls under green, amber or red lines. One briefing to the Parliament on the issue 3 years ago ending in a resolution and formation of a committee that is still seeking response on lack of implementation of its recommendations, is unfortunately falling way short of the required response from elected representatives of Pakistan, said PILDAT. An informed interaction needs to take place inside the Parliamentary Committees which should engage in seeking a periodic assessment of the security scenario and offer guidelines. Apart from other US entities, US Congress, in comparison, engages in a periodic review of its strategy in Afghanistan and thus leading the global discourse. Pakistan, on the other hand, despite being in the front line of the war, chooses to remain confined to just respond instead of presenting its own national assessment of the regional security and its own legitimate concerns and issues. Parliament and Parliamentary committees can, and must, be in the forefront of creating such a periodic assessment both for the national audience and the one that creates a reasonable and legitimate space in the international narrative on the security concerns in the region, demanded PILDAT.

The analysis of the performance of these committees reveals that while there is some movement forward in which Parliament is gradually becoming aware of its responsibilities, the pace of exercising this responsibility remains slow and largely ineffective. During the three parliamentary years, starting from 45%8-45%9, the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence held 26 meetings while the Senate Standing Committee on Defence and Defence Production held 25 meetings. During the same period, the Parliamentary Committee on National Security held 35 meetings.

The comparison with other Parliamentary democracies, such as India and the UK, both of which follow the Westminster system, shows that our Committees lag far behind in effectiveness as well as efficiency. The statistics show that the number of meetings held by the Indian Parliamentary Committee on Defence in 2009-2010 alone is roughly equal to the total number of meetings held by the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Defence during the three years. Similarly, while the Standing Committee on Defence, India presented a total of 9 reports in the 15th Lok Sabha during one year, 2009-10, and the House of Commons UK Defence Committee presented 9 Reports and 5 special reports for in one year (2010), in comparison, the Senate Standing Committee on Defence and Defence Production failed to table a single report during the entire three years. The Parliamentary Committee on National Security presented just one report in 3 years while the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence presented 6 reports in three years. In addition, the Parliamentary Committee on National Security which prepared a report and sent its recommendations to the Government in 2009, still complains of lack of implementation of its reports.

PILDAT recognises that no national institution wishes to undermine any aspect of national security and therefore committee meetings discussing national security are sometimes needed to be held in camera, but this does not need to be the overriding principle as determined by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security chaired by Senator Raza Rabbani. Parliament, first and foremost, is an accountable institution to the citizens and citizens views, opinions and voices need to be heard and incorporated into policies that define national security priorities for Pakistan. The PILDAT report on Performance of the Parliamentary Committees of Defence and the National Security during the first 3 years of the 13th National Assembly of Pakistan together with a Background Paper on Parliamentary Oversight of Defence in Pakistan: The Way Forward, authored by Mr. Sartaj Aziz, former Senator and Federal Minister of Pakistan, are being released to today.