A delicate balance
We support finding of the Supreme Court despite profound reservations that exist regarding military courts generally
Military courts, whatever their merits and demerits, are legal under the Constitution and the Supreme Court has now recognised that. CREATIVE: AAMIR KHAN
Let us be clear from the outset — military courts, as to be set up in the context of the National Action Plan (NAP), are not a universal panacea, and may be a Pandora’s Box of future troubles. That said, they were established by a constitutional amendment that was debated and agreed by parliament, which duly voted for them. This was not to the satisfaction of all, not least the many civil rights groups concerned at the further erosion of an already frayed and decayed justice system. The spectre of summary justice was raised, and rightly so, but the inescapable reality is that military courts, whatever their merits and demerits, are legal under the Constitution and the Supreme Court has now recognised that.
On August 5, the Supreme Court dismissed a raft of petitions against the 21st Amendment in a decisive 11-6 ruling. We support the finding of the Supreme Court despite the profound reservations that exist regarding military courts generally. They may be the thin end of a powerful wedge, but as things stand, they are a constitutional reality and the Supreme Court is right to recognise that. There are other battles to be had about the Constitution as a legal entity, and whether or not amendments to it can be struck down and the legality, or otherwise, of amendments made to the Constitution by parliament — but the ruling is a recognition of the primacy of parliament as the lawmaker, however contentious.
All too often, there has been a lack of respect for parliament and its decisions — though some are undoubtedly flawed and reflect an institutional immaturity — but Pakistani democracy has to be viewed very much as a work in progress rather than a finished item, perfect in every way. The military courts have been set up to address a specific issue at a particular point in time. A time when the state is fighting a complex battle between itself and forces that seek not just to destabilise, but to overthrow, to de-democratise and return to a form of governance that is anachronous to the modern and developing world. We give our (very) guarded approval.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 6th, 2015.
On August 5, the Supreme Court dismissed a raft of petitions against the 21st Amendment in a decisive 11-6 ruling. We support the finding of the Supreme Court despite the profound reservations that exist regarding military courts generally. They may be the thin end of a powerful wedge, but as things stand, they are a constitutional reality and the Supreme Court is right to recognise that. There are other battles to be had about the Constitution as a legal entity, and whether or not amendments to it can be struck down and the legality, or otherwise, of amendments made to the Constitution by parliament — but the ruling is a recognition of the primacy of parliament as the lawmaker, however contentious.
All too often, there has been a lack of respect for parliament and its decisions — though some are undoubtedly flawed and reflect an institutional immaturity — but Pakistani democracy has to be viewed very much as a work in progress rather than a finished item, perfect in every way. The military courts have been set up to address a specific issue at a particular point in time. A time when the state is fighting a complex battle between itself and forces that seek not just to destabilise, but to overthrow, to de-democratise and return to a form of governance that is anachronous to the modern and developing world. We give our (very) guarded approval.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 6th, 2015.