Debate Deadlocked?
By Misbah U. Azam, PhD
Phoenix, AZ
The removal of the honorable judges, the extra-constitutional actions of Gen. Musharraf and their subsequent endorsement by his political cronies, is being largely debated in the country and once again it appears the debate is slowly turning into some kind of a deadlock.
Proponents of different views are arguing and airing their views, but not approaching any consensus. Also, due to the absence of a clear position by the PPP, the lawyers and the bar associations, who are persistently struggling to repeal the extra-constitutional orders, are getting frustrated and trying to keep a sustained pressure on the parliament-elect. The PPP’s refusal to come out with a clear cut position on the issue could be due to: a) the sudden disappearance of Benazir Bhutto from the scene who had the charisma to make tough decisions, b) the fear among the PPP leadership that if the President is cornered he would topple the entire chess board recklessly much like his previous actions, c) the fear that if the judges are restored they will assert their authority against the government’s operation. Recently, Mr. Amin Fahim mentioned this fear on a private TV, and d) the coordinated ‘good cop and bad cop’ game by big parties to maintain a sustained pressure on the President while making sure to give him some outlet so that history will not be repeated. The most common argument by the PPP senior leadership in their support of not taking a clear position is that if they restore the judges who were laid off on Nov. 3, then why those judges who refused to take oath on the PCO in 1999 should not be restored.
Although, there is some weight in this argument, tlegal experts question this viewpoint by arguing that a) in 1999, unfortunately, the people did not reject the decision and the honorable judges could not become the symbol of defiance to the undemocratic forces even after their principled stance, b) the honorable judges in 1999 accepted retirement and began to take pensions, which is not the case in 2007, c) in 1999, the PCO did not force those honorable judges out of their positions, but the 2007 PCO removed around 60 judges from their positions, which, even the parliament with two-thirds majority cannot do, and last but not least, d) the 17th amendment ratified all the PCO actions by the two-thirds majority in parliament.The top leadership of the PPP has a valid point that these issues should be debated in the parliament; however, the PPP should, at least, take the civil society and bar associations in confidence about their future plans. The people of Pakistan and the world at large are watching very carefully how the new political dispensation deals with tough realities.
The senior leadership of big parties in the parliament has the opportunity to take the country towards the rule of law and resilient democracy or towards the Establishment-manipulated political dispensation, in which the government would be formed by parties like Convention League, Zia Himayat Tehreek or Q-League.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
