PTI and PAT guilty of defying court
Lahore High Court’s decision declaring the demands of PTI and PAT as unconstitutional and restraining them from launching their marches in an unconstitutional manner, has added another dimension to the controversy raging in regards to the rationale, motives and justification for the ‘Azadi’ and ‘Inqilab’ marches which could have repercussions of their own. The PTI and PAT ignoring the decision are already on the road to Islamabad contending that the court only barred unconstitutional marches and that their marches were within the constitutional parameters. Some circles are of the view that the court orders are unambiguous and needed clarification from the court itself as to what it meant by unconstitutional marches. A number of legal and constitutional experts view the decision as an interference of the court in the political affairs contending that no demands were unconstitutional unless the party demanding them took steps which violated the law and the constitution.
I am not a legal expert to understand the legal intricacies but I strongly believe in the maxim that commonsense does make sense. And if commonsense is applied to the decision the answers to the foregoing points and contentions are not difficult to find. The operative and substantive part of the decision is actually the declaration of the demands as unconstitutional. If the demands are unconstitutional then it automatically renders the rallies taken out to pursue those demands as unconstitutional, irrespective of the fact whether the court has transgressed into the political arena or not. Another point needed to be understood is that the court’s decisions, whether good or bad in the eyes of the parties affected by it, are binding on them unless they appeal against the decision in the Supreme Court and are given relief.
As the things stand at the moment the decision is binding on both the PTI and PAT and both are guilty of defying the court which can have some serious ramifications as already indicated in the decision itself. Both these parties by violating the court orders have not only undermined the sanctity of the judiciary but also set a very dangerous precedent which could lead to anarchy in the country. The courts have given a number of controversial decisions in the past — especially when Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was the CJ — and those decisions have been implemented. How the court reacts to the violation of its decision remains to be seen.
Perhaps it would be pertinent to look at the demands and put a proper perspective on them. First, let us have a look at the premise on which the PTI has built its campaign and preferred these demands. The stated reason behind imran’s ‘Azadi’ march is the alleged rigging in the 2013 elections — which according to him stole the mandate of the people — and the denial of justice to the PTI by the elections tribunals and the SC. The picture portrayed by PTI during the last fourteen months has many grey areas and empty spaces. Imran has repeatedly taken somersaults on his stated positions on who rigged elections and how. His allegations of rigging still remain unsubstantiated.
The delay in the disposal of PTI’s election petitions is a result of some systemic maladies and the stay orders given by courts. The petition of PTI filed in the SC was rejected by the court on the contention that it was not a primary court of hearing for such complaints and the appropriate and constitutional forum for it were the Election Tribunals. That is what the constitution prescribes and as such cannot be construed as denial of justice. Granted that the rigging did take place as the PTI maintains, then the onus of proof for this lies with the ECP or the interim government and not the PML-N government. The PTI is therefore targeting the wrong party and the very premise on which the entire argument has been based is terribly flawed.
Now a few words about the demands. The PTI demands are: Prime minister should step down; the parliament should be dissolved; the Election Commission should be reconstituted; an interim government of technocrats be formed and fresh elections held. The very fact that these demands are a consequence of non-proven allegations, they have no legal and moral justification as held by the court and also commented upon by the constitutional experts. The prime minister cannot be forced to resign unless he himself concludes that the country was faced with a political and constitutional crisis, fresh mandate of the people was necessary and consequently advises the president to dissolve the Parliament. No such situation exists in the country. Imran has only 33 seats in a house comprising of 372 members which is only 8.87 per cent of the total membership. How can they overrule the decision of the 91 per cent members of the Parliament to continue with the present system and to defend democracy and the Parliament? The rest of the demands follow from the first demand and it being unconstitutional and impracticable, they lose their legitimacy automatically.
However since the country has been pushed into a crucible of a political crisis, there is an imperative need to pull it out of the quagmire and save it from veering away from the democratic path. The onus lies with all the political leadership. The prime minister was right on money when he called for an end to negative politics and subversion in the country and urged PTI and PAT to work for the national development, while inaugurating the rehabilitated building of Quaid-i-Azam residency at Ziarat. The PM has already conceded to Imran’s demand for constitution of the Judicial Commission to probe into the rigging allegations, which provides an excellent opportunity not only to ferret out the truth but also a way to resolve the present crisis.
Imran must grab this opportunity which also provides him a face-saving exit from the tight corner he has pushed himself into. Flexibility and spirit of accommodation are the hallmark of a democratic dispensation. Rigidity and obduracy would lead to some undesirable consequences. Therefore we need to end the syndrome of destabilising elected governments before their mandated term through street agitations which have invariably benefited the undemocratic forces in the past. Those who are advocating and practising it today must not lose sight of the fact that tomorrow they might have to endure the taste of their own medicine and the country would keep suffering from this unending madness.
As is said there is no final word in politics and it is really heartening to know that leaders of some political parties are actively working to find a way to resolve the crisis. If Imran acts wisely responding to their efforts and the offers made by the government it would be a win-win situation for all the stakeholders. The same holds good for Qadri who is even not a stakeholder in the present political dispensation.
