Pakistan at 65

As the nation celebrates 66th Pakistan's independence day, political instability remains an unrelenting concern. Over the last six-and-a-half decades the country has lurched from one crisis to another mainly due to military adventurists' repeated interruptions in civilian rule. Constitutions were abrogated, draconian laws introduced to suppress the people, and distortions created in the system to suit the purposes of dictators. But the people never stopped aspiring for freedom and democracy. Unlike most other Muslim countries, where until the eruption of the recent wave of pro-democracy movements, authoritarian rule generally remained unchallenged, Pakistanis did not tolerate dictators for long. Of the four military dictators the one most brutal, General Ziaul Haq, lasted 11 years. That though is not to say that the Muslims in the Arab world have less interest in democracy than Pakistanis, only that South Asian traditions are different. While Pakistan is struggling to establish democracy, India with which it shares both its birth date and a large part of history, has gained the distinction of being the world's largest democracy and an emerging economic power. Thanks to the long and hard struggle waged by the people, Pakistan is being run by an elected government, which has almost completed its term. Unfortunately, however, democracy in this country is yet to attain maturity. The ruling classes have continually disappointed the people. At present, the nation faces a serious crisis as the Executive and Parliament are embroiled in a confrontation with the Judiciary. The apex court has sent one prime minister packing on contempt charges for his refusal to comply with its order pertaining to the revival of a money-laundering case involving the President. The incumbent faces the threat of a similar fate triggering fears of a showdown between state institutions. Talking to reporters on Sunday, former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani confirmed those fears as he warned that if, like him, Raja Pervez Ashraf, too, is disqualified as member of Parliament and hence prime minister the ruling party would not take the verdict "lying down." Then there is also a perception in some circles that the apex court is overstepping its jurisdiction, and creating unnecessary problems which may harm the entire political edifice. These people have been using the argument of parliamentary supremacy to defend the government's case, and to insist that the President enjoys immunity under the Constitution, therefore the court's orders to write the letter to the Swiss authorities is violative of the Constitution. There are others who point out that as per democratic principles the Constitution rather than Parliament is supreme; and that the apex court has the sole prerogative to interpret the Constitution. Given the country's chequered political history, people are worried that the fight between state institutions might encourage anti-democracy forces to take advantage of the situation. There may be no real basis to such worries. Yet a seemingly hurried or controversial manner in which the proceedings of certain cases are being carried out arguably lends a measure of strength to perceptions - real or perceived, or both. Indeed, perceptions normally are irrelevant to judicial decisions; the courts must decide cases in the light of the law and the Constitution only. However, rigidity is not the rule either; sometimes circumstances of a case are also taken into account to reach a particular decision. In fact, in its own January 9 verdict on the present case, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court had mentioned six options. These were: I) initiating contempt of court proceeding against the chief executive and other officials concerned for not implementing the NRO verdict; II) declaring the chief executive ineligible as member of Parliament; III) formation of a commission by the court to get the verdict implemented; IV) referring to the people to decide the issue; V) initiating contempt proceedings against NAB Chairman; VI) taking action against the President for violating the Constitution. Later, the larger bench hearing the case went for the first and second options. But that has not helped achieve the desired objective. Instead antagonism has exacerbated. Both sides need to act with a greater sense of responsibility and refrain from ratcheting up tensions. The court's directions to the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) to find a middle way have not yielded, nor are likely to yield, positive outcome for the simple reason that from the government's standpoint even a halfway solution is unfeasible. Instead of getting bogged down in constitutional technicalities, the court needs to reconsider its own five-member bench's recommended course of action, and apply the third option that called for setting up a commission to write the letter as part of NRO verdict implementation - the root cause of the government-judiciary stand-off. What should matter at this point in time is the end not the means to achieve it. As long as the objective is attainable through a commission, a literal application of the law should be avoidable. This country's turbulent political history calls for calm and calculated decisions aimed at strengthening the democratic system. At 65, Pakistan may be a very young country, but it is old enough to run a strong and stable democracy.