Pakistan: Constitutional blues

EDITORIAL:THE FRONTIER POST

The government contends that it is following the constitution. The judiciary too maintains that it is acting in accordance with the constitution. And the lawmakers insist that they abide by the constitutional privilege to amend the constitution and enact laws. Then why is so much of hullabaloo when each and all are respectable of the constitution and its true followers? Why all that tension and friction in the air? The bland fact is that after decades of military dictatorships and, yes, civilian autocratic rules, the state institutions are perhaps for the first time finding a climate of openness to breathe in. They are evolving and finding their feet. In the process, things are happening that were unimaginable before. The higher judicial appointments were once the closed preserve of the superior judiciary alone. But now the legislative branch too has a say in them. Likewise, parliamentary enactments were earlier deemed the last word. Now they are open to judicial scrutiny for their constitutionality. And the judiciary is now treading in the fields erstwhile deemed to be the executive's sole turf, while the executive is defying the judiciary on certain issues that it insists are within its own pale. Such confusions and bickering would persist inevitably until the institutions evolve to establish mutually acceptable and accommodative practices and traditions. But, then, tiffs and disputes are not unknown even to the established democracies with long-held traditions and norms. For months, US president Bill Clinton ran his administration on ad hoc funding arrangements as the Congress was adamant not to approve his proposed budget. And currently President Barack Obama has seen his health reforms being challenged in the Supreme Court, even though these had been approved by the Congress. Yet a clutch of Republican state governors and senators approached the apex court to shoot them down. Nevertheless, the court ruled in favour of the reforms, although with a contentious divided vote. Given this, there is nothing quaint about the chaotic conditions presently prevalent in the inter-institution relationships in the country. In time, as the institutions evolve, their mutual frictions will largely stand ironed out and greater harmony in their relationships will ensue. Until then, bonhomie is unrealistic to expect. Perhaps, a broad dialogue between the top leaders of the executive, legislative and judicial branches could help smoothen this evolution process to occur in a harmonious way. But that frankly looks just not feasible in the given conditions. Still, some effort to this end could be worth it, particularly when no institution wants any harm to come to the country and all mean good for the nation. Presently, a lot of vitiation is stemming forth from the Swiss letter episode, which indeed is poisoning the relationship between the judiciary and the executive worrisomely. Both have their stands rooted in the constitution. The Supreme Court is unhappy that by defying writing the letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen the money laundering case against President Asif Zardari, the government is ridiculing the judiciary, which a constitutional provision forbids. And the government insists that the president enjoys constitutional immunity and hence the letter it would not write. The imbroglio has given birth to a whole lot of difficulties and acts that could potentially hurt the system irreparably. A way out of the impasse thus needs to be found out so that the apex court's verdict is carried out and the government's reservation is also pacified. In this, the thinking class can play a role. It can moot out some plausible third way to go about the whole imbroglio to the satisfaction of both the apex court and the government. But, appallingly, certain segments of this thinking class are displaying quite a churlish cavalierism at this point in time when they are expected to act responsibly and with wisdom and sagacity. Instead of bridging the gulfs between the judiciary and the executive, they are out trying to widen chasms between the two. What point is there when the apex court has taken up a suo moto notice to flood it with many more petitions on the issue? The court will rule in the best of its light whether it is single petition or many more. Indeed, this kind of a joke of these strands of the thinking class this nation can hardly afford, placed as it is so fragilely at present.