Jahangir's World Times First Comprehensive Magazine for students/teachers of competitive exams and general readers as well.
There is nothing new in what the judiciary is doing
By this yardstick, the Pakistani military has acted pretty much as a political party to the extent that without having to fight elections like normal political parties do, they either manufacture or manipulate ‘public’ mandates for themselves. The genuine political parties of Pakistan ‘which have to work hard for their stripes and to get a chance to govern and serve’ now have another rival to beat at the hustings other than the military. And this new ‘political party’ comes armed with the powers of ‘lawful and binding’ judgment over all and sundry: the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
There have been three bouts of martial law in the country and each time these have been validated by the judiciary. The judiciary with Iftikhar Chaudhry in October 1999 not only validated Musharraf’s putsch against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his elected government but went a step ahead and, unbidden, gave the general the power to amend the constitution for three years. What can be more political than this?
Another key characteristic of political parties is that those that vie for the ultimate prize ‘formation of the central government in a country after elections’ do their best to outwit, outmanoeuvre and outplay their chief rival party. Sometimes they resort to extremes. In Pakistan both the military and now the judiciary have done the same’ dismissed their chief ‘political rivals’ from their turf. What can be more political?
Only four parties have led Pakistan during the past 40 years ‘Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan Muslim League-J, Pakistan Muslim League-N and Pakistan Muslim League-Q. All four have, at one point or the other, been directly dismissed by the military. General Zia-ul-Haq dismissed governments of PPP and PML-J (a party formed after partyless elections) while General Musharraf dismissed governments of PML-N and even his own crafted PML-Q.
In doing so, both the military and judiciary have operated as all but political parties. The only difference is that political parties do it at the hustings, not by sending soldiers to climb over the Prime Minister House or by assembling in courtrooms wearing black robes and white wigs swinging unruly gavels. And certainly not by deploying test-tube organisations that peddle manufactured patriotism or an army of lawyers running riot. So what’s new? The dismissal of Yousaf Raza Gilani and his elected government proves, if anything, that the more things change the more they remain the same in Pakistan. If the military did not sack another elected government this time, the judiciary has ousted another.
And this, then, is the political story of Pakistan: a country where the military and judiciary are political. Politics is the job of political parties so why political parties should be blamed by the judiciary and military for playing politics? And if the country’s security is the military’s job and avoiding partiality and dispensing justice the judiciary’s, then how come they have been deviating from their TORs and ‘playing politics’ instead? This question is at the heart of the Pakistan Project ‘is this country committed to being a normative state or one that all but believes the universe revolves around it and that it has to remain exceptional when it comes to statehood?
The dismissal of Gilani is extraordinary by even Pakistani standards because a democratically elected prime minister who still enjoyed a comfortable majority in National Assembly has been not just sacked as prime minister but also disqualified from being a member of National Assembly for five years. Even generals have changed their own handpicked prime ministers but not like this. Elected leaders have paid a price before many a times but never by judges who have not just overthrown a prime minister inked a verdict that trumps parliamentary sovereignty.
Of the eight general elections held in Pakistan, the Pakistan People’s Party has emerged as the single highest vote getter in seven elections and in five instances formed the federal government. And how has this people’s mandate been respected? One of PPP’s prime ministers was hanged, one was killed in a suicide bomb at tack (who was also twice ousted) and one has now been disqualified. No PPP prime minister mandated by a simple majority of the parliament after having been entrusted by the voters has a majority been allowed to complete his tenure. Each one was ousted by either the military or judiciary, or both. Under which mandate did all this happen? Who mandated whom?
The judiciary has given death sentences, jail sentences and service termination notices to PPP leaders and governments before. In fact the judiciary is now so completely ‘independent’ that it is ‘free’ to do anything now. There is nothing new in what the judiciary is doing. It sent the person to the gallows who authored the constitution that defines Pakistan’s collective will. It declared Benazir guilty of corruption in a case so cooked up that even the Supreme Court admitted mistrial. And it has now sent home the person who freed nearly 100 judges locked up in their own homes by two generals, one of whom is abroad and one in office. Justice anyone? Only politics.
