- And issues to ponder on
On the first day, a broadside, stopping short of the extreme that Zardari had gone to in June 2015. The second day, a toned down version, though without any change in the original stand.
Few would disagree that all constitutional bodies should strictly adhere to the basic law of the country which defines each one’s role. Parliament has to make laws, executive to run the country, judiciary to deliver justice and the army to defend Pakistan against external aggression under the directions of the federal government. But are all these bodies strictly adhering to their roles?
Zardari has reminded the CJ that he should be concerned about the ‘’900,000 cases’’ pending in the judicial system instead of “visiting other places and raising objections”. The CJ has taken suo moto notice of the fee limit for private medical colleges, of traffic blockades caused by VVIP movement and of shrinking water supply at the Katas Raj temple pond but the issue of delayed and costly justice faced by thousands of litigants daily is by no means of lesser importance.
There is a long history of the establishment removing elected governments and installing parties loyal to it, condoning corruption and bad governance on the part of their chosen leaders. What is wrong with Zardari’s comment that it would have been better to hold ‘transparent elections’ letting political parties to form a government through consensus?
Zardari however is a practitioner of realpolitik rather than a starry-eyed idealist sticking to principled positions. He takes a stand on principles only when it suits his politics. When it doesn’t, principles can be thrown overboard. He wants accountability for all, including judges and generals, but withdraws Farhatullah Babar’s resolution supporting the demand when it does not suit him.
It is argued that elected governments fail to take timely decisions about urgent issues facing the masses and someone has to intervene to do the needful. But don’t other institutions also make colossal blunders, some of them of disastrous proportions? Wasn’t the misadventure in Kargil one, to quote just a single example? Wasn’t the doctrine of necessity harmful for the nation? Would other institutions also allow politicians to intervene to rectify their wrongs?