On 16th of March, early in the morning Prime Minister apparently in a hastily taken decision announced the restoration of deposed judges while addressing the Pakistani nation. The decision comes in the wake of the ongoing long march by lawyers and various political parties (PMLN, PTI, JI etc.). All players involved in this crisis, government and protesting political parties are trying to take credit for the restoration of judges. Newspapers and blogs are cherishing this decision and Pakistani email forums are exploding with emails congratulating each other on this 'Independent Judiciary day'. As I understand this whole episode is full of hypocrisy and double standards from its very onset till its conclusion yesterday, I will try to analyze and point them out in this article.
There is little doubt that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was ousted as the result of a power struggle between him and President Musharraf. After being unsuccessful in his first attempt to remove him by sending a reference against him, Musharraf finally resorted to brute force, ousting the whole judiciary by implementing 'emergency rule' and asking judges to take fresh oaths under a new PCO (Provisional Constitutional Order). 60 Judges refused to do so and were dismissed until they comply. From this point, the 'lawyers movement’ gained momentum as political parties realized this as a golden opportunity for weakening Musharraf by joining hands with the legal fraternity. The people of Pakistan, filled with anti-Musharraf sentiment due to his subservience to his US masters followed lawyers and politicians in big numbers. There is no doubt that from the very beginning of this political struggle till its climax, people responded to the call of 'justice', 'independent judiciary' and the hope to lead a better life under a judge who stood against a tyrant by refusing to resign and take oath under the PCO. In this context, it is important to analyze the background and stance of all the major players of this movement.
There is little doubt that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was ousted as the result of a power struggle between him and President Musharraf. After being unsuccessful in his first attempt to remove him by sending a reference against him, Musharraf finally resorted to brute force, ousting the whole judiciary by implementing 'emergency rule' and asking judges to take fresh oaths under a new PCO (Provisional Constitutional Order). 60 Judges refused to do so and were dismissed until they comply. From this point, the 'lawyers movement’ gained momentum as political parties realized this as a golden opportunity for weakening Musharraf by joining hands with the legal fraternity. The people of Pakistan, filled with anti-Musharraf sentiment due to his subservience to his US masters followed lawyers and politicians in big numbers. There is no doubt that from the very beginning of this political struggle till its climax, people responded to the call of 'justice', 'independent judiciary' and the hope to lead a better life under a judge who stood against a tyrant by refusing to resign and take oath under the PCO. In this context, it is important to analyze the background and stance of all the major players of this movement.
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry started to be hailed as the guardian of independent judiciary since President Musharraf sent a judicial reference against him and deposed him from his position. Though he was cleared by fellow judges of any wrongdoing and was reinstated, Musharraf dismissed him again, this time by implementing ‘emergency rule’ in the country and forcing all judges to take new PCO oaths, which roughly 60 judges including Iftikhar Chaudhry denied. This removal and denial made him an instant hero not only among the legal fraternity, but all anti-Musharraf political parties (pretty much all at that time except for the ruling PMLQ) not only supported him but highly politicized this issue to mobilize their workers against Musharraf. All of them gathered around a one-point agenda, which also became the basis of all their election campaigns, which was the restoration of judiciary. It seems political parties conveniently overlooked that Iftikhar Chaudhry in January 2000 (then a serving judge on the Balochistan High Court) was one of the first judges to take an oath on the PCO. This, it is believed by many analysts, allowed him to be elevated to the Supreme Court to fill one of the vacancies left by the 11 judges who had resigned refusing to take this oath. Iftikhar Chaudhry was also one of the 12 Supreme Court judges who on May 13th 2000 validated the military coup of General Musharraf. They justified removal of the elected government of Nawaz Sharif legal on the basis of the 'doctrine of necessity'. In June 2001, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of two judges who visited the Presidency House to successfully convince the then President Rafiq Tarrar to resign, and make way for General Pervez Musharraf to assume that office. On April 13 2005, in the "Judgment on 17th Amendment and President's Uniform Case", Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of 5 Supreme Court judges who dismissed all petitions challenging President Musharraf's consistitutional amendments. In a wide ranging judgement they declared that the Legal Framework Order (LFO) instituted by General Musharraf after his suspension of the constitution, the 17th amendment which gave this constitutional backing, and the two offices bill which allowed Musharraf to retain his military uniform whilst being President were all legal. Isn't it ironic that the whole lawyers’ movement was based on not recognizing judges who took oath under the (second) PCO? Isn't it hypocritical that those responsible for validating and strengthening Musharraf's dictatorial rule are portrayed as the only ones who can bring him to justice? What kind of double standard is it that those who made the 'doctrine of necessity' an excuse for their unjust acts are now expected to 'bury the doctrine of necessity once for all' in words of NWFP Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain. The people of Pakistan are expecting the restored Chief Justice to invalidate the infamous yet euphemistic NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance) which allowed people like Zardari to become the President of Pakistan.
Lawyers’ leader Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan has already stated that Justice Iftikhar will avoid taking up the NRO. It is also quite unlikely to happen now as the restoration orders have come from the very signature of Zardari, which leaves one to ask what was this entire struggle for?
For those who say that standing up against the tyrant Musharraf have washed away previous sins of Iftikhar Chaudhry and this act is also symbolic of repentance, I would like to ask what options did he have at that time other than either accepting a shameful dismissal in the face of corruption charges, or relying on his fellow judges and lawyers for support? History has shown that the choice he made was indeed the right one, at least for him. That this has any semblance of repentance in it is wishful thinking especially given the fact that he has never himself regretted his previous actions or asked the nation for forgiveness for strengthening Musharraf’s rule.
For those who say that standing up against the tyrant Musharraf have washed away previous sins of Iftikhar Chaudhry and this act is also symbolic of repentance, I would like to ask what options did he have at that time other than either accepting a shameful dismissal in the face of corruption charges, or relying on his fellow judges and lawyers for support? History has shown that the choice he made was indeed the right one, at least for him. That this has any semblance of repentance in it is wishful thinking especially given the fact that he has never himself regretted his previous actions or asked the nation for forgiveness for strengthening Musharraf’s rule.
Moreover, it is shameful in the least that in the numerous public speeches and interviews which Iftikhar Chaudhry gave while he was deposed, he never spoke about any of the core issues which lie very close to the heart of the Pakistani people, be it the drone attacks from Pakistani territories, or the ‘war on terror’ that is sinking Pakistan into oblivion.
Asif Ali Zardari (PPP)
Whether Zardari hijacked PPP has become history now for the simple fact that except for a handful of insignificant party members, all of the party is rallying behind him. Ever since assuming leadership of the party and later the country as well, he has become known for his broken promises, autocratic rule and improper behavior. Despite the words of Prime Minister Gilani, everyone knows that the PPP leadership has done its level best to avoid restoration of judiciary. He showed the true face of democracy in Pakistan when he ordered brute force to be used to stop the long march, blocking every road with illegally held containers, closing down the motorway and even suspending mobile services in major cities. How can people rest their confidence in Democracy for Pakistan after the information minister, Sherry Rehman resigned in the wake of the growing clampdown by government on protests by lawyers and opposition groups which speaks volumes on how even some die hard PPP loyalists see no difference in the previous regime and the new one?
The double standards of PPP also became evident when Zardari uttered that political problems should be solved on the table and in the assemblies, rather than on the street, whereas the term ‘long march’ is actually associated with PPP and BB by most Pakistanis. Benazir Bhutto in 1993 embarked on long marches twice to ouster former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and president Ghulam Ishaq Khan. The third long march that Benazir Bhutto scheduled for November 13, 2007 against Pervez Musharraf, demanding reinstatement of the deposed judges and lifting of emergency rule, turned out to be a mere threat and pressure tactics. Similarly the striking similarity between the recent long march and the one threatened by Benazir Bhutto in 2007 is the demand for the reinstatement of the deposed judges. It is shameful that now being in power, her PPP (till bowing down to popular and perhaps foreign pressure) held a totally different view on the judges’ return, conflicting with their previous, unambiguous stand.
Nawaz Sharif (PMLN)
Nawaz Sharif has tried to profit the most, particularly after the elections when Zardari (PPPP) turned his back on the restoration issue. But when one looks beyond recent slogans, it is not only ironic but deeply hypocritical that Nawaz Sharif who is today portraying himself as the champion of justice and the Chief Justice is the same man who when in power, led a self-imposed war against the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who opposed his restoration to power in 1993.
Moreover, Sharif brothers are also trying to have the cake and eat the cake too, by being part of the ruling coalition on one hand and campaigning against the government whilst in public.
While Zardari-Gilani have been cheerleaders for America’s undeclared war on Pakistan, PML-N and the Sharif brothers, who until recently were part of the government, have been silent about the Pakistani government’s policy of supplying the US with bases on Pakistani soil for drone attacks, supply of fuel for the American army used in attacks against Pakistan and the supply of US and NATO weapons through the port of Karachi.
Foreign Intervention
If there is one lesson to be drawn from this whole episode, it is about the level of foreign intervention. Only the number of times Hoolbrooke, Miliband, Patterson and Mullen contacted various Pakistani political leaders and the Army Chief speaks volumes about the level of foreign intervention and here again the true face of democracy was exposed.
Conclusion
The power of public opinion has become evident and also that the spirit of those who created Pakistan in the name of Islam is still present – defying brutality, dictatorship and bans. However, it is important that their efforts, like in the past, are not hijacked by insincere and sellout politicians. Though justice is one of the most important pillars for successfully looking after the affairs of the people, it needs to be understood that in the given framework of Pakistani politics of horse-trading, double standards, foreign intervention, tensions between army and government and agent rulers it is indifferent if the judges who are sitting in the courts have taken oath on the PCO once or twice. Moreover, it also needs to be understood that the proper functioning of judiciary will only be guaranteed if its basis is the Islamic judicial system within the framework of a ruling system which is also based on Islam and follows the seerah of Rasoolallah (saw). Therefore, the people of Pakistan must use this newly won spirit to understand the method of Islam for establishing a new leadership and a new system – the Islamic system of governance. That is the only path for independence and true progress.
Posts
