IN the context of the Executive-Judiciary relationship, the last few months of 2012 have been unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. By every account, the ‘present’ during these days was another country. Harbingers of change through judicial decision and activism are happy-to-see signs of an emerging rule of law in the country.

A political party is content that it is moving towards its main aim – completion of term in office. This is what the PPP has been taken up with, rather than the ideal of providing relief to the people.

Also, not least significantly, amid the standoff between a determined Bench and an ever awkwardly-placed Executive, all those rumours about a return to Army rule turned out to be false. This in itself was a change not everyone could easily reconcile to.

Democrats drew plenty of pleasure from the containment of the military even if the more knowledgeable among them did point to the thinness of the cover from behind which the real powers in uniform continued to arbitrate on crucial issues.

Outside the core official circles obsessed with power compromises, the PPP government was the real loser. It was forced to concede on almost every case that it took up with the Judiciary, bar a somewhat honourable fading out of Mansoor Ijaz’s memo. But then memo’s expanse went much beyond the Zardari setup. It was always more likely to end in an honourable draw due to the presence of such local and international giants as the Pakistani military and the United States.

At great political cost, including the sacking of a prime minister, the PPP setup finally wrote that famous letter to the Swiss government, committing itself to the hearing of some old corruption cases against its leaders. Hailed by many as a vindication that everyone here stood equal in the eyes of the law, the letter was a brutal snub to the long-running refrain about parliamentary supremacy. This was what the battle between the Executive and the Judiciary was all about – the government had told us previously. It ended with the Supreme Court establishing its authority as the body empowered to interpret laws created by the parliament.

By and large, the court’s tone was more stern than matter-of-fact. Apart from the disqualification of premier Yousuf Raza Gilani, the apex judges ruled that the government of Balochistan had lost its constitutional justification. The court maintained that the administration of Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani had failed to exercise the options it had at its disposal, which led to loud thinking whether the court was recommending imposition of a governor’s rule.

The government said the Balochistan decision was an attempt to assume for the courts the power that the president earlier had under Article 58-2(b). There were a few who protested that the decree amounted to overreaching. But there were new rules which discouraged criticism of court decisions and media attention remained focused on a general discontentment among the people that was taken as a justification of court intervention. The result: the ‘political’ side to the court decisions such as the one on Balochistan remained largely uncommented.

Contrarily and with serious ramifications for all times and governments to come, the courts were increasingly cast as a forum compelled to intervene on people’s behalf because of an inefficient government. This aspect was most visible when the Supreme Court took it upon itself to provide relief to CNG consumers.

In the wake of the Swiss letter, an unsuccessful attempt at face-saving was made by the government’s side. The argument was that since the chances of re-opening of the cases against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari were non-existent or very slim, the letter didn’t really make any difference to the health of the government. Legally, that may have been true. Politically, it was a facade that could only self-deceive.

In pure popular terms, at a time when President Zardari was struggling on so many fronts, the writing of the letter did leave him even more vulnerable to vicious attacks. The declared opponents pounced on the opportunity with relish. The ones ostensibly not opposed to an individual or a party but avowedly following principles could also hardly contain themselves from taking a jab at the incorrigibly corrupt.

At a distance, the so-called ideological souls talked unheard about the virtues of a politician compromising so much and no more. Resistance, they said, was necessary not just for his own sake, but in the long-term interest of the Executive and Legislature whose case he had promised to contest.

Mr Zardari had long maintained that his party’s government would never write the contentious note to the Swiss authorities. At one point in time he had equated the act to a trial of the grave of Ms Bhutto. As ally Altaf Hussain thundered against what he suggested was selective handling by courts of issues, President Zardari’s surrender was summarily given prominent place in the embarrassingly long list where he had buckled under pressure after vowing to fight it out till the last.  The court had won a resounding victory. Its rulings were set to make an impact when PPP and some of its allies next faced the jury of the people.

The writer is Dawn’s Resident Editor in Lahore.