…but not guilty!
The most logical outcome of the guilty verdict against the sitting prime minister by the Supreme Court should have been some serious introspection and a pragmatic review of the circumstances that have brought the ruling PPP and the country to this sad pass. Instead, what we have seen is an outpouring of the same old confrontational and partisan harangues, now rendered even more venomous and divisive because of the SC adjudication.
If there is a contempt law in the country as, indeed, there is, few can dispute the fact that the prime minister has been grossly guilty of the crime over and over again. Its manifestations have been evident through efforts to distort facts before the apex court as well as demeaning public pronouncements involving the SC by the prime minister and his legal aides. The punishment has, therefore, been deservedly given. Will that contribute to changing the negative mindset of the ruling mafia and make it more amenable to respecting the rule of law? That hardly appears to be a prospect. As a matter of fact, the judgement would further accentuate the existing level and scope of confrontation that sets apart the executive from the judiciary and, by extension, from other state institutions including the army.
That, of course, does not mean that the punishment should not have been awarded. While this may have opened up a Pandora’s Box of opinions and counter-opinions, contesting it on matters of law is a prerogative of the prime minister and moving the court for a review is also an option that his team of lawyers would understandably exercise. However, the most disturbing post-punishment aspect has been the attempt to obliterate the divide between an innocent person and a person who has been found guilty of a crime and awarded an appropriate punishment. Equally reprehensible is the contention that the conviction has not made any difference to the person who happens to hold the highest political office in the country and that he would continue to perform his functions notwithstanding. This is in spite of the immediate loss of all moral and legal authority of the incumbent and the clearly laid down steps that need to be followed in the post-conviction environment understandably leading to his constitutional ouster. Instead, the stress is on playing the cards that best suit the myopic interests of the ruling mafia. We are already hearing reverberations of the Sindh card, the Seraiki province and the Hazara province while the walls of Karachi, Hyderabad and some other cities in Sindh are blackened with calls for a Mohajir province.
Agreed that there may be comparatively little sensitivity to the observance of law in this country. This is because of the strenuous efforts made by a sequence of despotic and democratic leaderships alike who have been beholden only to their personal interests and those of the coterie of sycophants that they patronised. What is, however, new is the organised manner in which a confrontational approach has been conceived and orchestrated with the prime objective of hiding the blatant corruption of individuals and institutions, more so that of one person. After all, what forced the judiciary to finally hold the prime minister in contempt? It was his persistent refusal to write the letter to the Swiss authorities in the wake of the NRO judgement staking a claim to the US$ 600 million of ill-gotten funds benefiting the president of Pakistan.
Are we going to continue having a convicted Mr Gilani as the prime minister? Indications are that this may well be the case. In any civilised democratic society, it would never have come to this. In the event the head of the government is even accused on some count, there is no hope in hell that he would be able to continue. A conviction, contested or uncontested, would lead to immediate ouster. In Pakistan, it is not only that the government and its team of servile attendants are contesting the guilty judgement, they are also accusing the judiciary of bias. Let’s not forget that it is the same judiciary that gave the government almost two-and-a-half years to implement the NRO adjudication.
Internal haggling aside, what is the level of authority that a convicted prime minister would command in leading the country in important parleys internationally? There is a US delegation visiting Pakistan to engage our leadership in critical negotiations regarding resumption of bilateral relations while the prime minister would be visiting the UK in early May. Can he be entrusted with the task of leading Pakistan at these talks causing embarrassment to the country?
That brings us to the most critical question: confronting a mindset that does not believe in the constitution or the rule of law and appears determined to continue notwithstanding, what are the instruments that could be used to undo this madness? If such a remedial effort is not initiated urgently, it is feared that there would be a speedy surge towards anarchy. The die is already cast as some political parties have taken the position that they no longer recognise Mr Gilani as the prime minister and he should quit forthwith. This ugliness is going to further perpetuate the divide and may result in a no-holds-barred conflict involving deeply-dug-in mafias representing numerous interest groups in the country whose patrons are only egging them on in this dangerous manoeuvring that can have catastrophic results for the country.
There is no escaping the fact that the proponents of democracy have brought the system to a grinding halt. There is no going any further unless critical questions of the constitution, law and morality are effectively addressed and a path found that is just and acceptable to all stakeholders. Continuing by way of a constitution and law as interpreted by the ruling mafias is not an option any longer.
The writer is a political analyst and a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. He can be reached at [email protected]
