The ‘but-if’ epidemic
Making the judiciary controversial at every opportune moment is bound to create instability
The writer is a graduate student at Pennsylvania State University and can be reached at hamza.shah3@hotmail.com
The recent court ruling of Musharraf’s death sentence has sent ripples across the country. It would not be an overstatement to say that not many expected such a heavy capital punishment to be handed out to an ex-military dictator. But, as is the case with other high-profile cases, the recent judgment has caused polarisation among the various segments of society. There are a lot of “buts” and “ifs” being hurled around in reaction to the judgment.
The army took no time in openly expressing its reservations regarding the punishment handed down to its former chief. This reaction comes in stark contrast to its earlier stance where the army repeatedly distanced itself from the actions of Musharraf. It reiterated that the actions of an “individual” do not represent the whole institution. The army, in showing its disappointment, stressed that due process had not been followed while deciding the merits of the case. It urged that the rule of law, according to the “Constitution”, be followed. It contended how a person who fought wars to defend this country can be branded as a “traitor”.
Now let’s turn our attention to other Musharraf sympathisers — those who believe him being singled out and victimised. Popular opinion among them suggests that the case was hurriedly decided, without giving the defendant the right of defence. There are certain quarters that go as far as saying that the recently-retired chief justice of Pakistan expedited the outcome of the case to create a personal legacy — one that would make him the only CJP brave enough to punish a military dictator. Others are questioning as to why the abettors of Musharraf, mainly former PM Shaukat Aziz and former law minister Zaid Hamid, those who helped him abrogate the Constitution, are not being indicted. Here again, it is the “buts” and “ifs” that are being emphasised.
Even the Musharraf, under the stewardship of PM Imran Khan, who in the past claimed that Musharraf was guilty of high treason, is finding faults with the recent judgment. The irony is that, at first the government wanted the court to delay the proceedings of the case because they feared Musharraf might go scot-free. Now that the verdict has been passed against the former dictator, the government finds it to be seriously flawed — in essence, advocating for Musharraf. It is incomprehensible to think that the government, being the prosecutor, is openly criticising the court ruling.
Major opposition parties have welcomed it as a “landmark” judgment — one that is going to usher in a paradigm shift in favour of a strong democracy. The PPP and the PML-N are, in some shape or form, trying to take credit for the conviction of Musharraf. But it begs the question: what concrete steps were taken by the two parties to prosecute Musharraf during their respective tenures? The PML-N might argue that it was its government that initiated the case against the ex-army chief. While that contention is true, the Nawaz Sharif government allowed Musharraf to leave the country albeit under the premise of medical concerns and the momentum of the case soon fizzled out. No concrete steps were taken to ensure that the defendant was brought back to face court proceedings.
In another classic case of “but-if”, certain observers have questioned the credibility of the courts over this judgment. They cite the “inaction” of the judiciary over the matter of the attack of lawyers on the Punjab Institute of Cardiology. It is argued that while the judiciary was extremely active in making sure Musharraf’s case was wrapped up quickly, no action has been taken against the lawyers who committed a heinous act by attacking a hospital. Even media analysts have been stressing this point in talk shows. While the argument of indecisiveness against the lawyers has its merits, it is completely unrelated to the high treason case of Musharraf. Yes, action needs to be taken against the lawyers who committed an atrocious act, but we need to ask ourselves whether an unrelated case should undermine the outcome of Musharraf’s case.
In the aftermath of the death penalty being laid down to Musharraf, there were cries about this judgment potentially leading to a clash between institutions and derailing democracy. Whether plausible or not, should the judgment be passed on hypothetical repercussions or the merits of the case? Should concessions be handed out or should the rule of law prosper?
There is an underlying theme that accompanies almost all high-profile cases in Pakistan — nobody takes the judgment at its face value and instead focuses on the conditionalities. Our nation suffers from the “but-if” epidemic. We only need to look at the recent history to shed light upon this predicament. Be it Nawaz Sharif’s Panama case, Jehangir Tareen’s disqualification, or Imran Khan’s acquittal, each and every judgment is politicised while merits of the cases take a backseat. No-one is arguing that political elements are not involved in deciding cases in our country, but at the same time we need to call a spade a spade. If a crime is proven to be committed, there are no two ways about it. Unless we as a nation learn to acknowledge court rulings at face value, we will remain divided and bound to infighting. Sometimes it is beneficial to take a simplistic view of things and shun the complexities. Making the judiciary controversial at every opportune moment is bound to create instability.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 25th, 2019.
The army took no time in openly expressing its reservations regarding the punishment handed down to its former chief. This reaction comes in stark contrast to its earlier stance where the army repeatedly distanced itself from the actions of Musharraf. It reiterated that the actions of an “individual” do not represent the whole institution. The army, in showing its disappointment, stressed that due process had not been followed while deciding the merits of the case. It urged that the rule of law, according to the “Constitution”, be followed. It contended how a person who fought wars to defend this country can be branded as a “traitor”.
Now let’s turn our attention to other Musharraf sympathisers — those who believe him being singled out and victimised. Popular opinion among them suggests that the case was hurriedly decided, without giving the defendant the right of defence. There are certain quarters that go as far as saying that the recently-retired chief justice of Pakistan expedited the outcome of the case to create a personal legacy — one that would make him the only CJP brave enough to punish a military dictator. Others are questioning as to why the abettors of Musharraf, mainly former PM Shaukat Aziz and former law minister Zaid Hamid, those who helped him abrogate the Constitution, are not being indicted. Here again, it is the “buts” and “ifs” that are being emphasised.
Even the Musharraf, under the stewardship of PM Imran Khan, who in the past claimed that Musharraf was guilty of high treason, is finding faults with the recent judgment. The irony is that, at first the government wanted the court to delay the proceedings of the case because they feared Musharraf might go scot-free. Now that the verdict has been passed against the former dictator, the government finds it to be seriously flawed — in essence, advocating for Musharraf. It is incomprehensible to think that the government, being the prosecutor, is openly criticising the court ruling.
Major opposition parties have welcomed it as a “landmark” judgment — one that is going to usher in a paradigm shift in favour of a strong democracy. The PPP and the PML-N are, in some shape or form, trying to take credit for the conviction of Musharraf. But it begs the question: what concrete steps were taken by the two parties to prosecute Musharraf during their respective tenures? The PML-N might argue that it was its government that initiated the case against the ex-army chief. While that contention is true, the Nawaz Sharif government allowed Musharraf to leave the country albeit under the premise of medical concerns and the momentum of the case soon fizzled out. No concrete steps were taken to ensure that the defendant was brought back to face court proceedings.
In another classic case of “but-if”, certain observers have questioned the credibility of the courts over this judgment. They cite the “inaction” of the judiciary over the matter of the attack of lawyers on the Punjab Institute of Cardiology. It is argued that while the judiciary was extremely active in making sure Musharraf’s case was wrapped up quickly, no action has been taken against the lawyers who committed a heinous act by attacking a hospital. Even media analysts have been stressing this point in talk shows. While the argument of indecisiveness against the lawyers has its merits, it is completely unrelated to the high treason case of Musharraf. Yes, action needs to be taken against the lawyers who committed an atrocious act, but we need to ask ourselves whether an unrelated case should undermine the outcome of Musharraf’s case.
In the aftermath of the death penalty being laid down to Musharraf, there were cries about this judgment potentially leading to a clash between institutions and derailing democracy. Whether plausible or not, should the judgment be passed on hypothetical repercussions or the merits of the case? Should concessions be handed out or should the rule of law prosper?
There is an underlying theme that accompanies almost all high-profile cases in Pakistan — nobody takes the judgment at its face value and instead focuses on the conditionalities. Our nation suffers from the “but-if” epidemic. We only need to look at the recent history to shed light upon this predicament. Be it Nawaz Sharif’s Panama case, Jehangir Tareen’s disqualification, or Imran Khan’s acquittal, each and every judgment is politicised while merits of the cases take a backseat. No-one is arguing that political elements are not involved in deciding cases in our country, but at the same time we need to call a spade a spade. If a crime is proven to be committed, there are no two ways about it. Unless we as a nation learn to acknowledge court rulings at face value, we will remain divided and bound to infighting. Sometimes it is beneficial to take a simplistic view of things and shun the complexities. Making the judiciary controversial at every opportune moment is bound to create instability.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 25th, 2019.