ANALYSIS: Clash of institutions —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
ANALYSIS: Clash of institutions —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Courtesy to "Daily Times"
A clash among the state institutions can dismantle the current
democratic process and create a more difficult situation for the
military and the judiciary than the present predicament. There may not
be a solution of the resultant crisis within the framework of the
constitution
There are two types of politics in Pakistan.
The elite or high politics focuses on the partisan and narrow interests
of political leaders and parties. Their personal and party egos
dominate their disposition. This also includes the key personalities
controlling the state institutions like the executive, legislature,
judiciary and military. They are influenced by professional, personal
and corporate considerations. The other type of politics pertains to
the concerns and problems of the common people. It focuses on their
socio-economic and societal insecurities caused by price hike, growing
joblessness and faltering healthcare, education and civic facilities.
The
latest example of elite politics is the increased political
confrontation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court (SC) judgement on
the NRO. This judgement has created the spectre of a clash between the
federal government and the superior judiciary, which could destabilise
democracy and civilian rule.
Prime Minister Gilani assured the
National Assembly on January 27 that “there was no danger to the
present democratic system or any prospect of a clash of state
institutions”. He made a similar statement on January 28. His
confidence seems to be based on the constitutional provisions that
stipulate that the president can be removed only by impeachment by the
two Houses of parliament.
In a country like Pakistan where the
governments are dislodged and the presidents are removed by military
takeovers or manoeuvring from the sidelines, constitutional provisions
are not an assured guarantee of security of key political offices.
Traditionally,
the top brass of the military played a key role in the making and
un-making of political governments. Now the superior judiciary is
expanding its domain of power and stepping into what has traditionally
been the sphere of the executive or legislature under the pretext of
judicial activism.
Unless the judiciary and the military
recognise that only parliament has the constitutional power to remove
the president, the political future of the president will be in doubt
and the clash of state institutions remains a possibility. Among these
two institutions, the military holds the highest cards on the political
future of the president. If it makes it known to the political class
and the superior judiciary that it has no interest in Asif Ali
Zardari’s removal through unconstitutional or extra-constitutional
means, the current campaign for Zardari’s ouster will dissipate.
Some
individuals, especially the prime minister, are making an earnest
effort to defuse tension between the executive, especially the
presidency on the one hand and the judiciary and the military on the
other. If these efforts do not succeed, a clash among the state
institutions can dismantle the current democratic process and create a
more difficult situation for the military and the judiciary than the
present predicament. There may not be a solution of the resultant
crisis within the framework of the constitution.
Pakistan has
lived from crisis to crisis and after every couple of years there are
many people who project a doomsday scenario for the future of Pakistan.
All such predictions have proved wrong. Let us hope that the
possibility of the collapse of the current political system proves to
be another false alarm.
The SC judgement on the NRO has created
enough opportunity for the political opposition to target President
Zardari for his ouster. The ongoing political discourse is focused on
one person, although the SC judgement has reopened the cases of 8,041
persons.
The opposition demand that the SC judgement should be
implemented is a code phrase for demanding the initiation of court
proceedings against President Zardari on the basis of the revived
cases. No opposition leader has talked of initiating impeachment
proceedings in parliament against Zardari on the basis of corruption
charges. They know that they cannot succeed, thus they are raising the
issue outside parliament, hoping that the SC would suspend or
disqualify him or direct the government to start court proceedings
against him. They are also hoping that the army top brass would force
him to quit.
The ‘Get Zardari’ agenda has led the opposition to
give different interpretations to Article 248 of the constitution that
stipulates blanket immunity to the president from all kinds of criminal
proceedings. The well-known partisan interpretations are (i) the
immunity does not apply to the cases registered before the assumption
of office; (ii) court proceedings can be initiated and the court can
pass a judgement but the judgement may not be implemented as long as a
person is holding the presidency; (iii) the SC can waive the
presidential immunity as provided in the constitution; (iv) the
constitutional provision does not restrain the government of Pakistan
from resuming the cases against the president in foreign courts., i.e.
the Swiss courts. Some argue that Zardari’s candidature for the
presidential elections of September 2008 has become questionable after
the SC judgement of declaring the NRO as unconstitutional from the
beginning. Therefore, they argue that his election as president should
be declared illegal. An appeal on this issue has already been filed
with the Election Commission of Pakistan.
No matter what the
Zardari adversaries argue, there is no easy constitutional option
available to them to get rid of him. Any deviation from constitution
through the SC or the military would have extremely threatening
implications for the future of civilian and democratic process and
increase inter-provincial tensions. Three provincial assemblies have
expressed confidence in Zardari. The Punjab Assembly, dominated by the
PML-N, is the only provincial assembly that refuses to do so. Further,
the ‘Get Zardari’ campaign is stronger in Punjab than in any other
province. The PML-N has increased pressure on the government on the
implementation of the SC judgement, especially some action against
Zardari, and the new appointments in the SC and the Lahore High Court
as recommended by the chief justice.
The current polarisation
between the government and the opposition has nothing to do with the
concerns and problems of the common people. If we make a content
analysis of the speeches and statements of the political leaders of all
political parties, most of these are focused on what can be described
as elite politics.
Given the challenges faced by Pakistan mainly
due to religious extremism and terrorism and the troubled economy, the
government and the opposition need to pay more attention to these
issues. Other issues that need immediate attention are Pakistan’s
increased dependence on foreign economic assistance, declining exports
and foreign investment and reduced industrial output. All these factors
have negative implications for the lives of the ordinary people.
There
is a need to bridge the gap between the preferences of the political
elite and the concerns and problems of the common person. The greater
the gap, the more insecure is democracy. If the current political
trends continue, this gap is likely to increase and, as the political
elite continue to pursue their self-serving partisan agenda, the
possibilities of an institutional clash cannot be ruled out. This will
cause a major institutional breakdown beyond the scope of the
constitution.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
Notes