Pakistan: Balance of convenience

EDITORIAL : Daily Times

Dr Tahirul Qadri has been questioned by the Supreme Court (SC) about his locus standi as a Canadian national to file a petition against the constitutional validity of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) under Article 213 and 218 of the constitution. The hearing on Monday that was supposed to be on the formation and hence the ultimate dissolution of the ECP, as desired by Dr Qadri, ended up with Dr Qadri standing in the dock answering the three member bench of the SC as to what the contents of his oath were when he became a Canadian national. At the end of the hearing Qadri was asked to submit a concise statement admitting that he had sworn an oath of allegiance to another country and that the federal government had issued a notification allowing him to retain the citizenship of Pakistan at the same time. On Tuesday, the SC once again raised questions on Qadri’s sudden foray into the politics of Pakistan and then barging into the constitutional domain of the country, that too only a few weeks prior to the elections. The Chief Justice (CJ) was curious to know as to why Qadri would come in December, and not earlier. After all the present ECP, about which Dr Qadri has reservations, has been working for over almost a year. The CJ made clear the significance of holding elections on time. He was all praise for democracy in the country that had found its place after going through enormous miscarriages. There was a clear message that all doors to undemocratic moves have been closed, especially to martial law. The locus standi, on which Dr Qadri’s statement on Tuesday relied, had yet to be decided and the hearing was adjourned for another day. The argument by the court, that Dr Qadri being a dual national does not stand legal or for that matter moral ground to file a petition against any institution of Pakistan, stands on weak foundations. Yes, why would Dr Qadri bring into the spotlight such a sensitive issue now, when the country is giving final shape to the arrangements for the next elections, is intriguing. Seen in this context the entire argument put forth by Dr Qadri against the ECP gives leverage to the court to inquire into the intention of the petitioner. That is exactly what is being done by the SC, besides examining the admissibility of the petition. Though Tahirul Qadri has been bending his back to upset the system by his intervening in election matters, the timing does not afford either the state or the judiciary to take any chances. We are hanging in the balance. We need the elections to happen, free, fair and in time. The court could rely on the doctrine of balance of convenience to save the country from the conspiracies surrounding Dr Tahirul Qadri’s political intervention. The dissolution or any verdict on ECP could be detrimental for the elections and for democracy at the end of the day. Dr Qadri might enjoy the right to move the courts on questioning the formation of the ECP, but dismissing his demand at this time would be to the greater good.