7
The prime minister’s contempt case is headed for destination unknown.
Aitzaz Ahsan, the defence counsel, is filibustering to his heart’s content. And though the court is clearly irked, it appears to be in no indecent haste to rush to convict either. And the adjournment of the NRO implementation case (where experts predict a second and harsher contempt charge awaits the prime minister) to the first week of May lends further credence to the prediction of a future unclear.
Yet between the government’s refusal in the court (to write a letter to the Swiss courts) and the fiery speeches by the president, his prime minister and the heir apparent elsewhere, there are few takers for the bet that the executive-judiciary tug of war will continue for the foreseeable future without any resolution.
In other words, many continue to be certain that the courts will cut short Gilani’s tenure.
Though predictions in Islamabad should be taken with a fistful of salt and not the pinch one wastes on roadside totas who predict the future, any court decision against the prime minister — however valid — will be a debacle.
For it will put paid to the new rules of the game that appeared to be emerging post-2008.
Since the last elections, the three main political players have played the old game of politics with a qualitative difference. They jostle with each other, try to undermine one another, hit out in public and private — but unlike the 1990s this time around the top men in the top positions have desisted from taking one another down.
This time there are no Sajjad Ali Shahs to strike down entire amendments. No prime ministers who move to dismiss chief justices or army chiefs and no military supremos who send prime ministers or presidents home. And as they play by this unwritten rule, they have unwittingly ensured their own tenures.
In fact, despite the much-hyped clash between the judiciary and the government, both sides have always swerved when faced with a head-on collision.
Consider October 2010. The Supreme Court had been hearing the NRO case and rumours ruled the roost that the government was going to be sent packing by the judiciary.
Just when it appeared that the situation could not get any worse, it did. A TV channel reported that the government had decided to retract the notification restoring the judges in March 2009 and all hell broke loose. Late at night, the judges drove back to the Supreme Court to issue an order asking the prime minister to guarantee in writing that he would not withdraw the notification.
The government, which is known for its backtracking, stuck to its guns for once.
The night before the next court hearing, the prime minister appeared on television, flanked by chief ministers, senior ministers and others to announce that his verbal commitment was enough and that he would not deliver anything in writing. He never once referred to the court or its order directly but the message was loud and clear.
The SC heard what he said. The next morning it heard that the government had ordered an inquiry into how the ‘news’ got to the media and moved on.
Before and after this incident, other crises have happened. But the red line has never been crossed. The judiciary struck down agreements and laws; lashed out at high-level officials; civil servants and cronies such as Adnan Khawaja were berated and embarrassed in courts and even sent home or to jail but the president and prime minister were never touched.
The government too played by the same rules. It flouted orders and it followed some, but it did not touch the judiciary.
The military too fell into line. It claimed Husain Haqqani’s scalp but not of men above him. The government hit back by sending the defence secretary home but reached no higher.
What is the big deal someone may ask? After all, this ‘new’ rule did not yield a very stable political system.
But it is in such small steps that the path to a better and more stable future lies.
A more stable system is based on institutions that do not confront each other, which then allows individuals to complete tenures.
The world over, individuals are spared for the sake of the positions they hold. Both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were spared impeachment proceedings despite their perceived wrongdoings — Clinton had lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and Reagan’s administration deliberately violated the United States’ official policy in the Iran-Contra affair.
Yet both got away — the legislature felt that it would be better for the system that the individuals occupying the White House not be held accountable, especially as both were ending their second terms in office.
Justice, in the political world, is not always more important than the system that makes it possible. And this is accepted in established democracies that have evolved a consensus on power, elections and transitions.
In transitional ones such as Pakistan, this rule has to become the norm if the system is to stabilise.
This is why the contempt proceedings are so important. Their outcome will determine whether the state players can adhere to this basic rule that is so essential for democracy. That some men, because of the posts they hold, should be left alone — at times even if there is alleged guilt or wrongdoing.
Partly it was this principle which brought the lawyers and others on to the streets in 2007 even before the Supreme Judicial Council had ruled in the case of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s removal. Now it remains to be seen if this principle can ensure the prime minister’s survival, even if justice is not done.
The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Islamabad.
