When will we learn?
In last few weeks there have been many incidents that point towards the primacy of individual interests over institutional. This is an indication that the state that is built on its institutions is faltering and weakened to its core. There was a bizarre undiplomatic letter written by a former top diplomat to vent his personal anger against a former colleague that is serving as an ambassador in a very important capital. The response to it showed personal agendas prevail in the ministry of foreign affairs. A former military dictator and Chief Executive of the country told foreign media that Dr Abdul Qadir Khan, considered the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, came begging for mercy to be pardoned for alleged nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea. Dr Qadir in response called Gen Musharraf a liar who sold national honour for personal benefit. Earlier a public rebuke by GHQ of Iranian President embarrassed our guests who were on a visit to Pakistan during the tenure of Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Shareef. Later the same person was appointed by Saudis to head Islamic military alliance. There may be no link between the two but the suspicions persist. And on top of that recently ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif while talking to BBC made a statement that Gen Musharraf coup was not institutionally mandated but rather executed by a handful of his close associates. If this is true then why did the Army as an institution not reject a coup as we recently saw in Turkey?
Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court called politicians members of a Sicilian Mafia while conveniently ignored the nexus between District Court Judges and lawyers to drag cases of poor petitioners for years. Is that not a pre-meditated organised effort to hinder justice and promote injustice? The reality is that all institutions of the state and democratic order are subservient to the interests of few individuals rather than people at large. Let us look at each to find some remedies.
All political parties are controlled by a handful of individuals or families with an exception of MQM Pakistan. Never in the history of Pakistan, has a politician decided to honourably retire and extricate himself from the political party they founded. Nawaz Sharif after serving three terms as Prime Minister is still interested in the fourth term despite attaining the age of superannuation. Mr. Zardari served as President but still wants to become a Prime Minister. Imran Khan has been Chairman of PTI since its founding and recently held a rigged election to keep his office unconstitutionally and illegitimately. He would have won the party election in a free and fair contest but his investors would have lost control of the party which was not acceptable to him. Asfandyar, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, and Mehmood Khan Achakzai are the second or third generations of politicians that founded the political parties they now control. In other words, there is not a single political party that can claim to be an institution that offers level playing field to all its members to rise through the ranks and claims right to lead. Cronyism, nepotism, and facilitation of investors is the hallmark of all these political parties. It is because of this weak foundation of political parties that our democracy rests on shaky ground. Parliamentarians emerging from these family enterprise political parties are engaged in abuse of power and corruption in government contracts to enrich themselves. They are one of the causes for the weakening of the social fabric and divisions in the federation. This has to change if we want to strengthen democracy and institutionalise decision making.
Judges of Superior Judiciary and Bar Associations are in close collaboration to control higher judiciary for personal gains. Almost 70% appointments in High Courts and Supreme Courts are from among the members of Bar Associations. This is one of the biggest hurdles for Districts & Sessions Judges to be able to progress in their career and reach the highest level. Most district judges retire at the same level despite serving for decades. This practice has to stop. Members of Bar Associations should be allowed to serve as judges only at the District level and thereafter only professional judges should be allowed to progress to High and Supreme Courts. Parliamentary Committee on Law, Justice & Human rights should be allowed to interview a higher court nominee before they are confirmed to their position. The interview should focus on their past judgments to ascertain their grasp of law as well as to identify any ideological biases held by the nominee. Civic associations and Bar Associations should be allowed to seek removal of judges that do not perform efficiently at District Courts.
The military is considered as an institution that has a long tradition of change of leadership in an orderly fashion. But does this singular feature entitle them to be called an institution? Does it also have a tradition of upholding larger national interest by respecting laws and constitution at the cost of its own institutional interest? The facts do not support it. Military as an institution has dominated the definition of national and state interest even if it meant abrogating constitution and law. Not only that, even symbolic gestures that institution can be subjected to the law were resisted. The recent example is the treason case against General Musharraf. Instead of appearing before the court the retired General decided to take refuge in a military hospital and was fully protected by his former institution which eventually sought his departure from the country using a questionable health certificate. Now a group of retired military officers is actively promoting the idea that democracy has failed and the country needs an interim technocrat’s government to clean up the so-called mess. This technocrat government, in their view, should be lead by a person of impeccable record of serving the nation and considered honest without a doubt. WhatsApp group chatter presents General Raheel Shareef as a possible candidate to lead this technocrat’s clean government. It is not evident yet if the military will support such initiative but efforts are certainly underway to gain their support. This will be yet another crazy experiment by the army using doctrine of necessity and pretext of good intentions for illegitimately gaining direct control of the government.
Considering the prevailing social, economic, security, and political situation, I have proposed a limited dialogue with all political parties. This dialogue is important before we enter next general elections cycle. A general election without resolving some critical national issues will result in chaos and uncertainty. We would like to be part of that dialogue as the history of PML-N and PPP is not very encouraging when it comes to solving national issues. As family driven parties they usually stop at muk mukka to facilitate each other rather than address larger issues. If political parties hesitated at this critical stage then they will pave the way for technocrat’s government led by a retired general to do their work.
