Supreme Court verdict: historical change is like an avalanche

The apex court's landmark verdict on Asghar Khan's 16-year-old petition against abuse of constitutional high offices has finally come, and as it comes it brings in its train not only possibility of ushering in Pakistan a new political culture but also poses serious challenges to political actors now on the national stage. It's a broad, inclusive verdict on how the so-called Establishment had been subverting the people's will expressed through the ballot, earning over time a bad name for the country and impeding growth of truly democratic culture and forces. Had the predecessors of the present Supreme Court acted courageously in defence of the laws and constitution of the day, by now Pakistan would have a strong vibrant democracy, envy of others in the region and beyond. But the apex court judges can do only as much; it's for others in government, politics, civil society and general public to see that this historic judgement is implemented in letter and in spirit. This certainly was the noble mission of a noble air marshal. What looked like a shot in the dark by a lonely man tends to turn the page on the lingering saga of palace intrigues, misuse of authority and power of money in politics. How this verdict will play out we would know in the light of the detailed judgement that is expected anytime soon because without that in the field, a follow-up action cannot be initiated in earnest. What an irony of time that president Ghulam Ishaq Khan, one man who had earned the reputation of being a man of the book and a constitutional stickler to forbidding limits, has been declared a violator of his oath of office by the Supreme Court. He dismissed two successive governments because he had no other choice after he concluded they violated Article 58 2(b), then an integral but highly controversial part of the constitution. He 'played' into the hands of military top brass, perhaps he had no choice as he had been ushered into the high office at their behest. What constituted national security is always a preserve of the GHQ. To think he could have refused to go along it would be a crass naivety; after all how often others who followed him in elected offices had succeeded in putting across and implementing their contrasting security perspectives, one would like to know. Had Ghulam Ishaq Khan been really enthused by the touted good of military take-overs and generals' peccadilloes he would not have pre-empted General Beg's political ambitions by nominating the next army chief well ahead of expected time. The undeniable fact is that the civilian outfits including the apex courts of the day had always condoned military interventions, sometimes under the dubious cover of doctrine of necessity. That the Supreme Court has put its foot down, saying no more misuse of high military offices in pursuance of crooked objectives is indeed a great moment in our history. But that was in the past, and history cannot be rewritten. Looking to the future, the court verdict poses two critical challenges, one each to civilian and military set-ups. For the government the challenge is to ensure that President Asif Ali Zardari stays clear of his political activities, as envisaged under Article 41 of the constitution. The court expects of him to quit the political office as PPP co-chairman - which he may not, given the Attorney General's insistence that the apex court is 'not mandated to regulate political functions which the president as of right can pursue', a position drawing substance from 18th Constitutional Amendment which permits the president to remain party head. For the military set-up the challenge is trial of its former army chief and ex-MI-ISI bosses. May be the detailed judgement offers some guidance on both these challenges, but we do not see anything really happening given the recent track records of both the setups. Then, the Chief Executive, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, too is not very clear on how to go about the implementation of the court order. Of course, in his welcoming speech he was quite categorical about bring the rigging culprits to book, but is there any organisation under him which can do it. The political opposition has already questioned the integrity and competence of the FIA, entrusted by the court to investigate and fix responsibility. But that said, the fact cannot be denied that a historical wrong has been righted, vindicating the PPP's longstanding stance on the 1990 election. And in larger context the court has set a crucial precedent by declaring military intervention in civilian affairs illegal, unconstitutional and high treason, a heroic performance and a huge step towards obtaining ambience of rule of law in Pakistan. Last but not least. A leaf out of acclaimed European historian Norman Davies (an excerpt from his talk with Financial Times carried by it on October 19, 2012): "Historical change is like an avalanche. The starting point is snow-covered mountainside that looks solid. All the changes take place under the surface and are rather invisible. But something is coming. What is impossible is to say when."