Biting The Dust

THE troika is dead, long live the quartet. Pakistan's political history took a new turn when one of the weakest presidents since martial law, Farooq Ahmed Leghari, demonstrated that even a constitutional amendment has not quite truncated his powers. As the executive and judiciary prepared for a head-on collision, the president was catapulted to centrestage and had to balance the conflicting demands. The troika—the president, the prime minister and the army chief—had acquired a new corner: chief justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah.

It was a comedy of errors except that everyone had their scripts mixed up and this could have led to tragic consequences. Take this instance: when one of the key players in the game, National Assembly Speaker Illahi Bux Soomro, met the chief justice to plead with him—a fellow Sindhi whose friendship goes back several decades—the chief justice quietly pointed to the television screen. Pakistan television was re-telecasting the speech of Awami National Party leader Esfandyar Wali Khan in the National Assembly where the chair had allowed him to flout Article 62. (The Article forbids any discussion on the chief justice.) "The chief justice has shred the law to stop 'lotacracy' (horse-trading). No power on earth can stop our speech. We did not know that when we reached this House we would become rubber stamps for a chief justice. His giving a stay to the 14th Amendment, the anti-defection law, has given freedom to future 'lotas' who are really political prostitutes."

A few minutes earlier, prime minister Nawaz Sharif had described the Supreme Court's decision on the anti-defection law as unconstitutional and illegal. Complete anarchy prevailed, and the executive did not even care when on October 30 the chief justice issued contempt notices to the prime minister, his parliamentarians and most of the newspapers in Pakistan.

As the power games continued in Islamabad, the army was clearly worried. Important American visits are on the anvil and international monetary institutions are in the midst of issuing badly-needed loans. Even the Americans were asking, "which government will be here when Madeleine Albright visits Islamabad?" Asked whether he would be willing to help resolve the dispute, chief of army staff Gen. Jehangir Karamat told 바카라: "Yes, we will help.

How? I do not know." Disaster loomed large as even when a well-meaning general stepped in to stem the crisis, Sharif and the chief justice refused to budge. "These inflated egos will finish Parliament once and for all. We are not here to be held hostage to the whims of one man," a Muslim League parliamentarian told Sharif at a parliamentary meeting. Thus, rumours of his parliamentarians deserting him was not lost on Sharif as he played for time.

Many people found it difficult to believe that this constitutional crisis could lead to Sharif's resignation and the formation of a caretaker government. But as things were progressing in Islamabad till October 31 evening, this was a strong possibility. In fact, journalists covering the whole drama had a tough time explaining to their editors—especially those abroad—that there were good chances of a caretaker government taking over simply because the prime minister had refused to elevate two high court judges to the supreme court. A reason being that one judge was not acceptable to the prime minister's powerful father, Mohammad Sharif, because he had ruled against the House of Ittefaq, Sharif's huge industrial empire.

THE curtain came down on the final act in Parliament when Sharif, pushed to the brink, announced that he would elevate the five judges to the Supreme Court in accordance with Sajjad's wishes. When Sharif also initiated a legislation that the full strength of the bench would be 17 judges, one opposition member piped up: "We wish that the chief justice had asked for something else. All his demands have been fulfilled and the prime minister had to bite the dust."

Only a day earlier, when 바카라 asked Sharif whether he would go for fresh elections, he had quipped: "Why should I? I have a two-third mandate." Ironically, it were the representatives of this very mandate—his MPs—that made him scared for the first time. Coupled with this was the chief justice's rigid stance. In fact, there was no stopping the chief justice as his office received a petition, challenging the 13th Amendment which had clipped the president's powers accorded to him under the controversial Eighth Amendment. Besides, the courts were already hearing some serious corruption cases against Sharif.

바카라 웹사이트The court cases brought back Sharif to earth with a jolt. And as whispers of horse-trading mounted—one vocal independent parliamentarian from Punjab said he was offered 43 million rupees by the district commissioner for development work in his constituency but he refused—Sharif realised that he could not take his huge electoral majority for granted either in the National Assembly or in the Senate where he does not enjoy the same strength as in the Lower House. Many wondered whether Sharif's announcement was a partial retreat or complete capitulation. There is no way of knowing Sharif's plans for the future. Only, it left people wondering why he brought the situation to a brink if he had to concede to the judiciary's demands.

The crisis was carried to a denouement when a full court directed the president to issue the appointment notification of five judges recommended by the chief justice. The government, in turn, asked the president not to act, since it was planning to file a review petition. The government was essentially trying to gain time because it really had no locus standi to challenge the Supreme Court on appointing judges, a fallout of the March 20, 1996, judgement.

Besides, several legal experts argued that, following this directive, the president was both empowered and under a constitutional obligation to appoint the five judges. Leghari reportedly advised the prime minister to fall in line. Besides, by then, Sharif had also realised that after the quartet met earlier in the week and failed to find a solution, he was clearly isolated.

The president and the army chief were not on his side. "The chief justice and his brother judges deserve laurels for taking a steadfast stand in defence of the basic structure of the constitution, based upon the trichotomy of power," said one analyst.

The president surprisingly has also come out of a corner. If he had obeyed the court, he would have violated the constitutional provision requiring him to act only on the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet. If he had dithered, then the highest functionary of the state would be disobeying the highest judicial authority.

But matters are still far from being settled. As a battered and bruised executive and judiciary pursue their inflated egos, several questions are unanswered. The judiciary has come up trumps but will the judges show the same brand of activism in the several cases lying with the Supreme Court against the government and the prime minister? Sajjad had assured petitioners that the proceedings would not disappoint them.

The National Assembly and the Senate are still in session. There is no telling if the government will now be tempted to usher in swift constitutional amendments to curb the judiciary—as was being talked about till the prime minister backed down on October 31. If this scenario unfolds, then Pakistan is in for a re-run of the just-concluded show. Because as fast as amendments come in, the judiciary can be expected to strike them off the statute books. It is only when both sides realise that there can be no winners will this ridiculous saga come to a close.