Clash of
institutions is dangerous
Mohammad Jamil
At this point in time, when internally the nation is being tormented by
militancy; economy is in dire straits; and externally powerful forces are
looking at it maliciously and viciously, the clash between the institutions can
be disastrous. After February 2008 elections, people had expected that the
Parliament, Judiciary and Executive - pillars of the state – would work within
the parameters drawn in the Constitution, but they have been trying to assert
power and claim supremacy. Parliament says it is supreme. Judiciary considers
itself as the most important pillar of the state, and believes that it could
strike down any article of the constitution that contravenes the fundamental
rights enshrined in the constitution. There is no denying that President
Zardari has an image problem. There are also cases of corruption against some
of his party stalwarts and bureaucrats supposed to be reopened after the NRO
was declared by the apex court as void ab initio. Constitutional experts are,
however, divided over immunity given to the President under Article 248 of the
Constitution. One group says that he has to go to the court to claim immunity,
while others believe that this immunity is inherent in the Constitution and
needs no interpretation.
In addition to Parliament-Judiciary standoff, efforts are being made to
drag military into politics, and fears are being raised by some unconscionable
elements about wrapping of the democratic setup. Apart from that, during
proceedings of missing persons’ case, a judge of the apex court remarked that
behind every third missing person FC’s name is taken. After the killing of 7
mine workers, a judge of the apex court is reported to have said that nobody is
working to ward off situation in Balochistan including the ISI and MI. It was
perhaps in this backdrop a renowned analysts and columnist Salim Safi, in his
article captioned ‘Balochistan: tassawarat and haqaiq’ stated: “You can go to
the court against the state institutions, but judiciary has no control over
non-state actors; and it is scared of them like other sections of society.
On Balochistan issue, Supreme Court called the IG FC, but it could do
nothing against Baloch militant leaders sitting abroad or their activists that
are active in Balochistan…Life of a Balochi is as precious as any other
Pakistani. For a mother, his son is entire universe for her. We must mourn on
his murder or disappearance. But the question is whether FC soldier is not
somebody’s son? How the mothers of those innocent mine workers would have felt
over their killings? What is the crime of innocent abadkar teachers, cobblers
and workers serving Balochistan? And why it is crime to raise voice for their
rights?” Recently, Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has taken
exception to the remarks from the Supreme Court judge that the PML-N should not
have staged a walkout and strongly argued against the contempt of court law on
the floor of the assembly. The language used by the critic against judiciary
was indeed acerbic. Though the present military leadership has stayed away from
internecine conflicts between the political parties, yet politicos, analysts
and panelists are criticizing the military for intervening in the political
affairs. They expect from the military not to interfere even when there is
anarchy in the country or external threat to its security. In the US, Britain
and even in India - arguably the largest democracy in the world - political
leaderships take decisions on the basis of the information provided by
intelligence agencies and advice of military leadership. It would be
appropriate to refer to the difference of opinion between the Indian Prime
Minister and military over Siachen. The difference of opinion between Obama
administration and the Pentagon is also a case in point – the former wants to
complete withdrawal by 2014 but Generals insist that troops may stay much
beyond 2014.
Outgoing US ambassador to Afghanistan Ryon Crocker has recently said
that despite drawdown significant forces would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014,
which means that military’s point of view has prevailed. It appears that US
forces will remain in Afghanistan much beyond 2014. Political leadership in
Pakistan should reconcile with the idea that military does have a role in the
matters of internal and external security, and has the right to give its
assessment of threats to internal and external security. Those politicians who
want to give military personnel as status of a chowkidar should come out of
stupor and face the reality on ground. In fact, after French Revolution and in
the days of Napoleonic warfare, tight formations of fighting men, aiming and
firing in precise unison were crucial to victory on the battlefield. As such,
military professionalism owes its origin to that era; however today it means
discipline, commitment and skill of armed services personnel. By the end of the
eighteenth century, tools of production changed due to Industrial Revolution,
which gave rise to new concepts like capitalism.
Since the state became more complex, there was need for dichotomy of
powers between various organs of the state, which passing through various
stages was defined in the constitution. Today, all countries of the world have
professional armies to protect their borders and also to ensure law and order
internally, as it is the responsibility of the government to establish the writ
of the state and protect the lives and properties of the people. Max Weber in
his treatise ‘What is politics’ stated: “A state is a human community that
claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory”.
Samuel P Huntington in his book titled ‘The soldier and the state: the theory
and politics of civil-military’ wrote: “A state can achieve little by diplomacy
unless it has the strength and the will to back up its demands with force”. But
Pakistani politicos, intellectuals and civil society do not understand that
nowhere in the world, the armed forces and agencies are criticized, demonized
or demoralized, as some pseudo-intellectuals and palmed off media men do.
المشاركات
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق