Now that the unforeseen has happened, Mian Sahib seems to have decided offence is the best defence. All along his return journey from Islamabad to Lahore he has been attacking the judiciary and, indirectly, the military, claiming that the decision to sack him was made first and a reason for it found later. It does not matter if the reason came from the Germany-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which has been awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for its efforts. Nor that heads of government in some other countries implicated in the same scandal had bowed out without questioning the authenticity of allegations emanating from the Panama Papers revelations.
He is in a vengeful mood and wants to get back at whosoever he can. Since two members of the bench hearing his case had invoked Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution to rule that he should be disqualified as he could no longer be considered 'ameen' and 'sadiq' (honest and truthful), he is pushing for amending these provisions, and setting the same criteria for all other public office holders - in particular judges and generals. Ironically enough, at the time the 18th Constitutional Amendment was in the works he had opposed the PPP's proposal to abolish these clauses. Indeed, there are several provisions in the said articles, introduced by the late and unlamented General Ziaul Haq, that are either absurd or defy definition, such as that a person cannot be a member of Parliament if he/she worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the 'Ideology of Pakistan". Going by the first standard few from amongst the Baloch nationalist parties can qualify to be in Parliament. And the ideology bit finds no mention in the founding fathers' conversations because it was no part of their vision for a new Muslim homeland. Then there is a clause that requires a legislator to be sagacious, righteous and non-profligate. Besides being subjective, none of these qualities has anything to do with business of the State. The only two relevant attributes a leader needs to possess are honesty and truthfulness in the conduct of public affairs. There are several instances from established democracies wherein politicians have been held to account for perjury, ie, making a false statement under oath. Not long ago, former US president Bill Clinton faced impeachment proceedings in Congress for lying before a grand jury about something very personal: his relationship with a White House internee. In the present instance, the defence resorted to conflicting statements, perjury and forgery in a case involving a far more serious issue of public interest. It would be only fair therefore to retain the provision that demands honesty and truthfulness from the holders of all high public offices.
For now, the PPP is in no mood to play ball with the Nawaz League, saying the next assembly will decide how and why these controversial clauses are to be removed. Nonetheless, in a recent Senate session PPP senators proposed an institutional dialogue between Parliament, the judiciary, and military. The idea, according to Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani, is to develop a consensus framework for bringing all institutions under the ambit of the law. The unstated purpose, of course, is to elicit a commitment from the military not to interfere in civilian affairs. Nawaz Sharif has also called for a grand dialogue to formulate a new political compact.
Any such effort would be an exercise in futility. For the country's supreme law, the Constitution, clearly defines the role of each institution. More to the point, at the time of their commissioning into the services all members of the armed forces take the oath to uphold the Constitution and "not to engage myself in any political activity whatsoever." If that has not helped, there is not much an inter-institutional dialogue can achieve. As for the others, in not-too-distant past, the PML-N and PPP had chalked out the much-hyped Charter of Democracy, but it did little to prevent the latter from making a deal, the infamous NRO, with a military regime. The just ejected prime minister has his own unsavoury track record of conspiring with the military establishment for the ouster of the late PPP prime minister Benazir Bhutto's two governments.
No amount of well-intentioned dialogue and discussion will do any good. The political class needs to make amends for its own failures. The recent elected governments neglected to deliver good governance due to a lethal mix of ineptitude and financial corruption. They willfully kept various accountability institutions weak to cover up their own acts of omission or commission, which is what makes civilian rulers vulnerable to unwanted pressures from the wrong quarters. Parliament is the place where governments are supposed to discuss and debate important policy decisions and respond to the people's concerns through their representatives. Yet the number of times Mian Sahib attended parliamentary proceedings can be counted on fingers. Civilian supremacy will be established only when elected governments learn to show due respect to state institutions, and act in the interest of greater public good rather than promoting self-aggrandizement schemes.
[email protected]
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017