Pakistan - Judicial Commission - The Inquiry Report & Beyond

By Afrasiab Khattak

The findings of the Inquiry Commission of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (erroneously and continuously called the Judicial Commission by all and sundry) about the alleged rigging in the general elections of May 2013, made public on July 23, are bound to have a profound impact on the political developments in the country. A fragile democratic system in Pakistan has significantly evolved over the last few years with the previous National Assembly completing its constitutional term of five years for the first time. Also significant was the fact that during the general elections held in May 2013, power was smoothly transferred from one elected civilian government to another without military intervention. Imran Khan led the PTI that could win elections only in one province, initially raised a few minor objections but by and large accepted the election results and assured the ruling party of its full cooperation in running the democratic system. But after the passage of more than a year, PTI developed second thoughts and decided to launch an aggressive agitation to force the government to conduct a judicial inquiry into the allegations of rigging. But the tone and tenor of IK’s battle cry would at times suggest that an overthrow of the government was the real aim of his campaign, which many believed had a “ script” behind it. Using the terminology of cricket, Imran Khan repeatedly and ominously claimed that Mr. Nawaz Sharif will have to go to the pavilion as the umpire raises his finger to declare him out. It is at this point that almost all major political parties decided to stand behind the constitutional system and parliament to foil the conspiracy for the unconstitutional overthrow of the elected government.

On August 12, 2014 the PML –N led federal government offered to set up a judicial body for inquiring into the allegations of rigging in elections but the PTI rejected that offer and launched a “long march” from Lahore to Islamabad. The marchers laid siege to Islamabad that continued for 126 days. The sit in came to an end only after the terrorist attack on Army Public School Peshawar on December 16, 2014. After intensive negotiations between the government and PTI representatives TORs were agreed upon for a Supreme Court Inquiry Commission. The findings of the Inquiry Commission have mainly rejected the allegations of industrial scale rigging and stealing of the mandate although it has held that procedural irregularities did take place in various constituencies, something that almost every one accepted from day one.

Findings of the Inquiry Commission are confined to the electoral process in the general elections of 2013 as per the TORs of the Commission. But there are serious questions in the minds of the people about the purpose and intent of Imran Khan’s reckless adventure. They believe that the real purpose of his anarchist agitation was to pave ground for a military coup. His unsavory designs were publicly exposed by the then sitting Central President of PTI Mr. Javed Hashmi who not only made public the details of the plan but also named names. During the recent few weeks some of the sitting federal ministers have pointed accusing fingers at specific influential elements of the security establishment (who have retired recently) for having a hand in IK’s coup plans. The concerned institutions have so far not denied their allegations. What else can explain IK’s call for launching civil disobedience, asking the people not to pay their utility bills and the expatriate to send remittances not through registered banks but through “hawala” illegal informal channels supposed to be used by terrorists for transfer of finances. Most interestingly the federal government could not take any action against these blatant unconstitutional and illegal activities and instead opted for “strategic patience”. 

With the coming of the inquiry report the PML-N government may congratulate itself for three things. One, that the constitutional system has survived and the IK’s effort to launch a coup has been foiled. Two, that the inquiry report will put to rest the controversies about 2013 elections enabling the government to complete its constitutional term of five years. Three that in the Inquiry Commission of the Supreme Court the legitimate umpire of the system has asserted himself not leaving space for the unconstitutional umpire that IK was waiting for. That may be very well justified and true. The PML-N government may remain in power and may complete some more metro bus projects. But will it effectively be in the driving seat of the state system in terms of fundamental policy making, is the real issue. Serious and keen political observers of the situation are already talking about a soft coup that has meaningfully changed the balance of power within the state system. Apex committees in some provinces have already expanded their jurisdiction beyond war on terror by encroaching on the functions of civilian executive in running day today affairs. To be fair it would be incorrect to attribute the entire mess to the Khaki push only. The paralyzing incompetence of political administration in some places also creates a vacuum that works as a pull factor.

Be that as it may, the political turmoil arising out of IK’s agitation may be over. But for all the political parties in general and for the ruling party in particular it will be very foolish and myopic to assume that the constitutional system is out of crises. It goes without saying that the parliament has to formulate reforms in electoral system on war footings. But the question of civil military relationship can’t be pushed under carpet any more. As Samuel P. Huntington puts it in his book ‘ Soldier And The State, “ Any system of civil-military relations thus involves a complex equilibrium between the authority, influence, and the ideology of the military, on the one hand, and the authority, influence, and the ideology of non military groups on the other”. Far from being a zero sum game it is all about the evolution of modern democratic state system. We have many best international practices to look at and creatively adopt them to our objective conditions. Political parties need to brainstorm about a series of reforms within political parties themselves along with reforms in the state system. We can delay it only with peril to ourselves.