Words of wisdom
The truth is that the Army dominates certain spheres of activity that should be in jurisdiction of the government.
Addressing the officers of the Command and Staff College in Quetta, when they visited the Supreme Court on April 16, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry made a statement that the nation must welcome with gratitude. He said that military interventions in politics had been responsible for the stunted growth of democratic institutions in the country and asked the officers to remain subservient to the civilian administration. The constitution itself manifestly states that all executive and judicial authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court, by reason of it being the sole interpreter of the Constitution. He said: “If we are to be recognised as a civilised nation in the world, then we must have supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law”.
There are many cogent reasons why he said what he said to the officers. In 2007, his court had clashed with an army chief wearing two caps — that of chief of army staff and president of the state — as a result of which the court had to face banishment. Scores of judges at the level of the higher judiciary and the Supreme Court were either ousted from their offices or chose to not to take oath with President Musharraf. A number of judges were inducted in their place, assuming that replacing judges rejected by the president, in his capacity of army chief and under martial law, would make the whole episode fade from public memory.
But after civil society stepped in and President Musharraf was made to leave, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his court resumed office and declared the act of Musharraf as army chief null and void; also nullified were the new appointments made to replace the ousted judges. All these were acts on the part of the judiciary decisively rejecting the interference of the army in the affairs of democratic institutions. The visit of the military officers was the right moment to reiterate the resolve of the Honourable Court to stand on the right side of the Constitution and state the obvious fact that the army is subservient to the elected organs of the state.
There was also a need to assert the transformation of the person of the chief justice who, as a member of the Supreme Court, had legalised the military takeover of the country in 1999, which had resulted in the ouster of the PML-N government of Nawaz Sharif and his banishment from the country. This transformation, brought about by the power of civil society, was also signalled in the rejection by the court of the judges inducted by President Musharraf after he had fired the court and also by the next incumbent government after the 2008 elections. Justice Chaudhry’s strictly constitutional advice that the army remain within the orbit of its constitutional remit, however, throws light on other aspects of the current situation.
The truth is that the Pakistan Army still dominates certain spheres of state activity that should be in the jurisdiction of the elected government. This is not something secret that the nation refuses to discuss. The ‘free media’ in Pakistan carries views of constitutional experts who challenge the dominance of the army in the handling of the country’s foreign affairs. This tendency started in 1988 when army chief Aslam Beg told the incumbent prime minister that foreign and security policies, including nuclear, would stay out of the domain of the civilian government. Then, in 1999, Prime Minister Sharif had to eat the bitter fruit of the Kargil Operation that was carried without fully taking his consent.
There is also the question of institutions other than the army stepping out of their constitutional turfs. The Supreme Court is probably one institution least under the shadow of criticism today, but a part of the legal opinion now thinks that it is too ‘activist’ in its ‘corrective’ approach to the executive in general and the government of the PPP in particular. Since the stature of the politician is still very low, his internecine politics frequently involves reference to the ‘biased suo motu function’ and, indeed, seems to encourage the court to ‘do more’ in its punitive conduct.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2011.
There are many cogent reasons why he said what he said to the officers. In 2007, his court had clashed with an army chief wearing two caps — that of chief of army staff and president of the state — as a result of which the court had to face banishment. Scores of judges at the level of the higher judiciary and the Supreme Court were either ousted from their offices or chose to not to take oath with President Musharraf. A number of judges were inducted in their place, assuming that replacing judges rejected by the president, in his capacity of army chief and under martial law, would make the whole episode fade from public memory.
But after civil society stepped in and President Musharraf was made to leave, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his court resumed office and declared the act of Musharraf as army chief null and void; also nullified were the new appointments made to replace the ousted judges. All these were acts on the part of the judiciary decisively rejecting the interference of the army in the affairs of democratic institutions. The visit of the military officers was the right moment to reiterate the resolve of the Honourable Court to stand on the right side of the Constitution and state the obvious fact that the army is subservient to the elected organs of the state.
There was also a need to assert the transformation of the person of the chief justice who, as a member of the Supreme Court, had legalised the military takeover of the country in 1999, which had resulted in the ouster of the PML-N government of Nawaz Sharif and his banishment from the country. This transformation, brought about by the power of civil society, was also signalled in the rejection by the court of the judges inducted by President Musharraf after he had fired the court and also by the next incumbent government after the 2008 elections. Justice Chaudhry’s strictly constitutional advice that the army remain within the orbit of its constitutional remit, however, throws light on other aspects of the current situation.
The truth is that the Pakistan Army still dominates certain spheres of state activity that should be in the jurisdiction of the elected government. This is not something secret that the nation refuses to discuss. The ‘free media’ in Pakistan carries views of constitutional experts who challenge the dominance of the army in the handling of the country’s foreign affairs. This tendency started in 1988 when army chief Aslam Beg told the incumbent prime minister that foreign and security policies, including nuclear, would stay out of the domain of the civilian government. Then, in 1999, Prime Minister Sharif had to eat the bitter fruit of the Kargil Operation that was carried without fully taking his consent.
There is also the question of institutions other than the army stepping out of their constitutional turfs. The Supreme Court is probably one institution least under the shadow of criticism today, but a part of the legal opinion now thinks that it is too ‘activist’ in its ‘corrective’ approach to the executive in general and the government of the PPP in particular. Since the stature of the politician is still very low, his internecine politics frequently involves reference to the ‘biased suo motu function’ and, indeed, seems to encourage the court to ‘do more’ in its punitive conduct.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2011.