USAID Pakistan Legislative Strengthening Project

During her February 2006 trip to Pakistan, Ann Seidman consulted with legislators, the legislative staffs, and representatives of civil society in the four provincial capitals and Islamabad.  In interviews, workshops, and roundtable discussions, the participants discussed how best to introduce an ongoing, self-reliant program to strengthen the capacity of Pakistan’s legislators to carry out their primary tasks:  (1) to assess and, when necessary, initiate legislation; (2) to monitor and evaluate government’s implementation of laws once enacted; and (3) to develop communications to increase their constituents’ knowledge of, and participation in, the Pakistani law-making process.

Participants in the process identified a number of widespread, pressing social problems, including poverty and unemployment, inadequate schooling, limited healthcare and water purification facilities, insufficient environmental protections, gender inequality, and constraints on human rights. They also underscored the failure of the law-making process to produce effectively implemented legislation to help resolve these social problems.

Some participants initially questioned whether governmental law-making constitutes a necessary addition to Islamic law in producing the “public good.”  Others viewed punishment as the most effective use of law to solve social problems. A small number even doubted that a problem-solving methodology grounded in facts and logic could change the power relationships that currently dominate Pakistan’s law-making processes. 

Participants concluded, however, that a project to strengthen elected legislators’ capacity to enact detailed, effectively implemented laws, grounded on facts and logic, could help to overcome persistent social problems. Such laws would address the causes of social problems, rather than simply imposing punishments.  A research report would accompany important draft bills and, using the problem-solving methodology’s four steps, would structure available evidence in a way that demonstrated the likelihood that the bill would effectively resolve the social problem it targeted. Anyone, no matter how poor, could introduce more persuasive evidence as a basis for making revisions to improve the bill’s likely contribution to the “public good.” Those with power could only object if they could provide other facts to demonstrate that another solution would probably prove more effective; rejecting the bill out of hand would only undermine their own legitimacy.

The discussions generated a proposal for instituting an ongoing two-year learning process in order to strengthen elected legislators’ capacity.  The process would include the following elements:

1. A two-week workshop in May 2006 for approximately 40 participants, including legislators, key members of the legislative staff, civil society organization personnel, members of university and staff-training institution faculties, and research institutions.  The participants would work in six teams to design legislative measures to ameliorate the social problems identified in February:  (a) lack of effective participation of legislators in the national and provincial law-making processes; (b) unemployment and poverty; (c) inadequate schooling; (d) limited healthcare facilities; (e) inadequate facilities to provide access to sources of clean water; and (f) the need for environmental protection and improvement.
2. The four-month residential “training for trainers” program at Boston University for 10 to 14 participants selected as potential leaders for the two-year process.  The program would equip participants with in-depth knowledge of legislative theory and methodology, social science research methods, educational techniques, and foreign law and experience relevant to the specific problems they seek to solve. Participants would work in teams to improve one of the research reports and bills initially drafted during the May workshop.
3. A self-reliant, ongoing learning process in Pakistan. Participants in the residential program would facilitate preparation of legislative programs to solve problems; organization of workshops to engage personnel in drafting bills and research reports; development of legislative drafting centers; and strengthening of ties between legislators and community organizations; and development of international contacts to foster learning from other countries’ experiences.