November 05 was, indeed, a historic day for Pakistan. On a
single day, the heads of the two most powerful institutions of the
country spoke about their respective roles and how they viewed the
constitution, and what their reservation and expectations are in regard
to the behaviour of major national entities and actors.
Was it sheer
coincidence - these two high-voltage articulations?First, let us see
Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s significant statements: “We
are critically looking at the mistakes made in the past and set the
course for the future…….While constructive criticism is well understood,
conspiracy theories based on rumours, which create doubts about the
intent, are unacceptable…….Any effort that draws a wedge between the
people and the armed forces of Pakistan undermines the large
interest…….Any effort to create a distinction between the leaders and
the led of the armed forces is not tolerated…….Let us not prejudge
anyone (no one is guilty unless proven) be it civilian or a military
person and extend it to undermine respective institutions…….Working
within the well defined bounds of the constitution is the right way
forward…….Trying to assume more than one’s due role will set us
back…….All systems in Pakistan appear to be in a haste to achieve
something, which can have both positive and negative implications…….The
ultimate national interest should emerge only through consensus…….Are we
promoting the role of law and the constitution?.......Are we
strengthening or weakening the institutions?.......No individual or
institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in
defining the ultimate national interest.”What impelled General Kayani to
come up with these strident pronouncements?Answer: The Supreme Court
verdict in Asghar Khan’s case, the fact that as many as nine senior
military officers, including two retired Generals and seven retired
Lieutenants, and Major Generals, are in the dock with no-holds-barred
jabs aired in the media as also the internal stresses within the
military ranks - all this together weighing heavily on the Army Chief,
who, by and large, had shown considerable restraint in his relations
with the civilian government.While it is manifest that over the years
the army has been violating the constitution by forcibly taking over the
control of the country, one has to remember that for around half of the
past six-and-a-half decades, it has ruled and enjoyed supreme power.
Even today, the civilian government has largely let them direct defence
and foreign affairs. Having tasted unbridled authority, the military
mindset fed on the perception of politicians as incompetent and corrupt
is not prepared to be denigrated, pulled up and hauled over the coals
for illegal and undesirable acts of omission and commission.A proactive
and assertive higher judiciary, and an increasingly resurgent and noisy
media, has, of late, been unsparing in highlighting the excesses,
aberrations and misdoings of both civilian and military administrations
and officials. The Supreme Court, in particular, is working hard to take
up the cases of violation of fundamental human rights and has taken to
task many who have been found to be involved in corruption and misuse of
authority. The Chief Justice of Pakistan, in particular, has been most
vocal in highlighting the supremacy of the constitution and majesty of
law. In his speech on November 05, while addressing senior civilian
officials, he made the telling remark that the “judiciary has been
trying to rewrite the constitutional and political history of the
country.” He recognised the efforts the media was making to inform and
educate people on national affairs. Said the Chief Justice: “We have a
vibrant media playing an affective role of whistleblower and watchdog of
public interest.”A day later, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, while
hearing the Abbottabad operation case, made the observation (primarily
meant for the Army Chief and, in particular, with regard to Kayani’s
remark that no one “has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in
defining the ultimate national interest”) that no one should remain
under any delusion, as authority to render final decision rests with the
apex court.It is, indeed, a testing time for the army. General Kayani
has earned respect because of the restraint exercised by him by keeping
himself and the army away from politics. No doubt, presently, he is
under intense pressure from various quarters - retired generals facing
enquires, and also because of the strain of fighting a war and the
institution’s internal grievances. The military certainly merits
appreciation and support for safeguarding national defence. The
challenge it faces today calls for patience and understanding. It has to
introspect and ruthlessly review its constitutional role and undertake
an exercise to persuade itself to change its mindset. Thanks to the
Supreme Court, the media and the civil society, Pakistan today is
undergoing a change for the better, seeking to set the direction right
that, hopefully, would lead to a paradigm shift - moving forwards a
better Pakistan, a democratic Pakistan, a country where there is rule of
law and respect for human rights for all citizens, irrespective of
creed, colour and class. General Kayani, indeed, can play a historic,
perhaps a heroic, role to mould the mind of the military, which agrees
to confine its role to the tasks assigned to it by the constitution.The
Supreme Court judgement is also highly significant for explicitly
stating the constitutional position and role of the President of
Pakistan. In the light of a survey of constitutions of a number of
countries following the parliamentary system, the judgement
authoritatively lays down the status and limitations of the office of
the President of Pakistan. Here are a few words of the judgement on the
issue: “A President of Pakistan before entering upon office, in the oath
of his office, solemnly swears that he…….will not allow his personal
interest influence his official conduct or his official decisions, and
that he will do right to all manner of people, according to law, without
fear or favour, affection or ill will. Thus, as the constitutional Head
of State, the incumbent of such a high office is obliged to perform his
functions and duties neutrally and impartially.“It is pertinent to
refer to the observations of Justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui in Mohammad
Nawaz Sharif’s case: ‘No doubt, the President as the symbol of the unity
of the federation occupies a neutral position in the constitution…….but
it is equally important that in order to protect and preserve the
dignity of this high office and this neutral image under the
constitution, The President must keep aloof from all political
imbroglio. If the President is unable to ward off the temptation of to
keep away from political game or he starts siding with one or the other
political element of the Assembly he is likely to lose his image as the
neutral arbiter in national affairs and as a symbol of unity of
federation under the constitution’.” There is a lot of food for thought
in the 141-page Supreme Court judgment. It should, indeed, be compulsory
reading for generals, politicians, journalists and the civil society at
large.
nThe writer is an ex-federal secretary and ambassador,
and political and international relations analyst.Email:
pacade@brain.net.pk