THE post-election public euphoria, and bonhomie among political parties, seems to have given way to a sense of foreboding and a feeling of dismay.
The news from various quarters in recent days is disturbing and reinforces the fear that palace intrigues, combined with pressure from powerful countries, may have finally managed to ‘soften the target’ to use a favourite military euphemism for bombing and killing. The vocabulary of some of the political actors seems to have dangerously metamorphosed following the visits of John Negroponte and Richard Boucher.
First, the defence minister reportedly described Pervez Musharraf as ‘a national asset’ who is good for Pakistan and someone with whom the political forces can work. Then one read about Asif Zardari’s tirade against the deposed judges for not allowing him any reprieve during his incarceration
This was preceded by reinvigorated ties with the MQM and its chief Altaf Hussain, and according to news reports Mr Zardari wanted Nine Zero to be accessible to Bilawal. Later, relations between the two parties soured somewhat. Accompanying all these actions was a news item that the judges would be restored according to a constitutional package in which they would be scrutinised. Amid rumours of restoring some and not all the judges such news items led to anxiety among those waiting to see the implementation of the Bhurban accord in its full spirit.
Lately, PPP sources have sought to dispel misgivings on this count by stating that a draft resolution for the reinstatement of all judges was ready and would be presented in the National Assembly soon. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of confusion around the restoration of the judges and the future of Pervez Musharraf. Some of it seems to have been deliberately created to obscure the real issues haunting the nation.
First, let us take the issue of the judges to understand why all of them must be reinstated. The issue of the judiciary is not about one man or a few men, for men come and go while institutions continue. The judicial issue is about the institution, its integrity and its independence. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is the symbol of judicial freedom and his action of March 9, 2007, has come to stand for the independence of the judiciary.
Those who separate ‘independence of the judiciary’ from ‘restoration of the judges’ simply miss the point. Such people argue that they are not interested in ‘personalities’ but in the independence of the institution. Institutions are made up of, and run by, persons who at certain points in history become signs and symbols representing the institution.
At this critical juncture of our history, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, irrespective of his personal foibles, has become infused with meaning — he has come to mean standing up to the establishment and being able to say ‘no’ to an array of uniformed interlocutors. If he is not restored fully and properly, along with the others who followed their conscience and refused to take dictation, a terrible precedent will be set. In future, the removal of non-pliant judges will become easier and more acceptable.
If the nation gives a resounding ‘no’ to the illegal removal of judges, and the mandate of the political parties suggests that the people have done just that, then the political parties must respect this verdict at the risk of losing their massive support. If the political parties fail the people, the latter may not only turn away from the parties, they may lose faith in the political process itself. This would be a real loss for the nation and its democratic development.
Although the news of a draft resolution for the judges’ reinstatement may allay doubts, there has also been confusion among politicians about whether or not a constitutional amendment was needed to restore the judges. The country’s leading lawyers, and a large number of former Supreme Court judges had already given their learned opinion, one can only add one’s layperson’s thoughts on this.
It seems very strange that illegal acts committed by one person would need a constitutional amendment in order to be undone. The illegal acts of any citizen are brought before a court of law and he/she is punished as per the Pakistan Penal Code.
But the spate of illegal acts by one person, whose power is derived from the barrel of a gun, would require a constitutional amendment to be reversed. This seems twisted and suggests that as long as a citizen carries arms and ammunitions, he may dismiss the entire court, make constitutional amendments, create his own court and the only way a legitimately elected Assembly can change all this is through a constitutional amendment. This is preposterous logic and clearly designed to create confusion in the minds of the people.
In other words, one man can make constitutional amendments without the lawful authority to do so, but the whole Assembly and the executive together cannot undo such illegal acts. So why have elections and a parliament or a cabinet? Why waste precious national resources on the paraphernalia of democratic institutions?
It does not make sense to an ordinary citizen why certain crimes cannot be taken cognisance of by a duly elected government. Even high school-level children know that only a duly elected legislature can make constitutional amendments, which is why the previous dictator-driven amendments had to be indemnified by the elected assemblies.
If one man can change the fundamental law of the land, and his hand-picked court put a stamp of approval on an act that benefits that court, then we do not need institutions that represent the will of the people as they become superfluous. If we accept this precedent today, at some future time any military adventurer who wants to usurp all parliamentary and executive powers, would simply need to impose an emergency cum martial law for a short period, remove all the judges, replace them with favoured ones, change the Constitution and there would be nothing to stop him. We will rue the day we accepted such a tradition.
It is imperative for Pervez Musharraf to leave the highly respected office of the president. This office represents the federation, the entire country. It must have legitimacy and acceptance by all the provinces and different shades of opinion. A man who violated the Constitution twice, and mangled and mutilated it single-handedly, cannot represent the nation. If the person at the helm of affairs violates the law how can one expect ordinary citizens to obey and follow it?
The retired general needs to be replaced by a person of honour willing to work according to the limited, ceremonial role of the president within the confines of the Constitution. This means that his powers under Article 58- 2(b) and the National Security Council need to be eliminated so that we can establish a system envisaged by the consensus social contract agreed upon in 1973.
[Coutesy: DAWN]
The news from various quarters in recent days is disturbing and reinforces the fear that palace intrigues, combined with pressure from powerful countries, may have finally managed to ‘soften the target’ to use a favourite military euphemism for bombing and killing. The vocabulary of some of the political actors seems to have dangerously metamorphosed following the visits of John Negroponte and Richard Boucher.
First, the defence minister reportedly described Pervez Musharraf as ‘a national asset’ who is good for Pakistan and someone with whom the political forces can work. Then one read about Asif Zardari’s tirade against the deposed judges for not allowing him any reprieve during his incarceration
This was preceded by reinvigorated ties with the MQM and its chief Altaf Hussain, and according to news reports Mr Zardari wanted Nine Zero to be accessible to Bilawal. Later, relations between the two parties soured somewhat. Accompanying all these actions was a news item that the judges would be restored according to a constitutional package in which they would be scrutinised. Amid rumours of restoring some and not all the judges such news items led to anxiety among those waiting to see the implementation of the Bhurban accord in its full spirit.
Lately, PPP sources have sought to dispel misgivings on this count by stating that a draft resolution for the reinstatement of all judges was ready and would be presented in the National Assembly soon. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of confusion around the restoration of the judges and the future of Pervez Musharraf. Some of it seems to have been deliberately created to obscure the real issues haunting the nation.
First, let us take the issue of the judges to understand why all of them must be reinstated. The issue of the judiciary is not about one man or a few men, for men come and go while institutions continue. The judicial issue is about the institution, its integrity and its independence. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is the symbol of judicial freedom and his action of March 9, 2007, has come to stand for the independence of the judiciary.
Those who separate ‘independence of the judiciary’ from ‘restoration of the judges’ simply miss the point. Such people argue that they are not interested in ‘personalities’ but in the independence of the institution. Institutions are made up of, and run by, persons who at certain points in history become signs and symbols representing the institution.
At this critical juncture of our history, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, irrespective of his personal foibles, has become infused with meaning — he has come to mean standing up to the establishment and being able to say ‘no’ to an array of uniformed interlocutors. If he is not restored fully and properly, along with the others who followed their conscience and refused to take dictation, a terrible precedent will be set. In future, the removal of non-pliant judges will become easier and more acceptable.
If the nation gives a resounding ‘no’ to the illegal removal of judges, and the mandate of the political parties suggests that the people have done just that, then the political parties must respect this verdict at the risk of losing their massive support. If the political parties fail the people, the latter may not only turn away from the parties, they may lose faith in the political process itself. This would be a real loss for the nation and its democratic development.
Although the news of a draft resolution for the judges’ reinstatement may allay doubts, there has also been confusion among politicians about whether or not a constitutional amendment was needed to restore the judges. The country’s leading lawyers, and a large number of former Supreme Court judges had already given their learned opinion, one can only add one’s layperson’s thoughts on this.
It seems very strange that illegal acts committed by one person would need a constitutional amendment in order to be undone. The illegal acts of any citizen are brought before a court of law and he/she is punished as per the Pakistan Penal Code.
But the spate of illegal acts by one person, whose power is derived from the barrel of a gun, would require a constitutional amendment to be reversed. This seems twisted and suggests that as long as a citizen carries arms and ammunitions, he may dismiss the entire court, make constitutional amendments, create his own court and the only way a legitimately elected Assembly can change all this is through a constitutional amendment. This is preposterous logic and clearly designed to create confusion in the minds of the people.
In other words, one man can make constitutional amendments without the lawful authority to do so, but the whole Assembly and the executive together cannot undo such illegal acts. So why have elections and a parliament or a cabinet? Why waste precious national resources on the paraphernalia of democratic institutions?
It does not make sense to an ordinary citizen why certain crimes cannot be taken cognisance of by a duly elected government. Even high school-level children know that only a duly elected legislature can make constitutional amendments, which is why the previous dictator-driven amendments had to be indemnified by the elected assemblies.
If one man can change the fundamental law of the land, and his hand-picked court put a stamp of approval on an act that benefits that court, then we do not need institutions that represent the will of the people as they become superfluous. If we accept this precedent today, at some future time any military adventurer who wants to usurp all parliamentary and executive powers, would simply need to impose an emergency cum martial law for a short period, remove all the judges, replace them with favoured ones, change the Constitution and there would be nothing to stop him. We will rue the day we accepted such a tradition.
It is imperative for Pervez Musharraf to leave the highly respected office of the president. This office represents the federation, the entire country. It must have legitimacy and acceptance by all the provinces and different shades of opinion. A man who violated the Constitution twice, and mangled and mutilated it single-handedly, cannot represent the nation. If the person at the helm of affairs violates the law how can one expect ordinary citizens to obey and follow it?
The retired general needs to be replaced by a person of honour willing to work according to the limited, ceremonial role of the president within the confines of the Constitution. This means that his powers under Article 58- 2(b) and the National Security Council need to be eliminated so that we can establish a system envisaged by the consensus social contract agreed upon in 1973.
[Coutesy: DAWN]
No comments:
Post a Comment