Make or break?
ANOTHER week of reckoning may be upon us as the Supreme Court and the PPP resume their private struggle on the national stage. With the Supreme Court set to take up petitions against the new contempt law today and the issue of the prime minister’s refusal to write the so-called Swiss letter also up before the court on Wednesday, a decisive showdown may be upon us, or yet another round in a long-running cat-and-mouse game may be notched up. At least as far as the new contempt of court law is concerned, the government appears to be fairly clearly on the wrong side of the law. The specific sections that baldly seek to give total immunity to a range of high officials and hold off court action in contempt cases for as long as possible are at the very least ill-advised and at worst, blatant violations of existing law and constitution. Even from a political point of view, the new contempt law typifies the government’s muddled response to its legal woes. After failing to appeal then-prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s contempt conviction – a move that could have bought the government some time – the government has gone back to its delay tactics, hoping to throw hurdles in the court’s path towards ultimately convicting a second prime minister, or worse.
However, unwelcome and unlawful as the government’s moves may be, the court faces an even bigger choice: oust another prime minister and further fuel the destabilising speculation that the demoratic system may be on the verge of being wrapped up or allow the prime minister to stay and let the upcoming general election run its course? All it took was one by-election in Multan last week to switch the national debate back to electoral politics and the sense of rejuvenation an election can bring. By the same token, however, a court-engineered ouster of a second prime minister in a matter of months will switch the conversation back to extra-constitutional steps being contemplated.
At its heart, the court’s ouster of one prime minister and possible ouster of another is about the Swiss millions allegedly stashed away by President Zardari. Without condoning or countenancing corruption, this newspaper has long held that on this particular issue at this particular stage in the country’s democratic development a verdict by the electorate was preferable to a judicial verdict. Put it this way: are some 60 million dollars worth ultimately derailing the democratic process? The answer in 2009 was no and in 2012, on the eve of an election, the answer is an even more resounding no.
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is who is on the right side of the law and how quickly justice is served especially to the poor?
Let there be an election and the new elected government decide the fate of the Swiss millions!
Exactly, You have rightly said that the ideology of Democracy has not been implementing in our country owing to not participating the masses it is owing to our politician's bad policies.
The Swiss case in question has been dismissed by an accountability court in Pakistan.Does the supreme court want to play politics on this issue internationally while the SC has lost this case in Pakistan?
It’s principles Sir, not your monetary cost-benefit analysis !
citizens are only involved in decision making once every five year .After that they have no power. This is called democracy and people must respect the decisions made by the government otherwise there will be chaos.
Supreme court ,if it disqualifies another prime minister will simply destroy its own credibility and will become fattaly wounded
For The People
From The People
By The People.
The People The Citizen of Pakistan are never involved in the decision making. Rather the Political Leaders or Appointees make the choices.
One would pray we as a nation mature up and do something for the betterment of masses instead of wasting energies on such matters.
It is not about jurisprudence or even accountability; it is about politics.
Very well written editorial but the question of 60 million will always be there. Let the judges decide that the powerful is saved or not. The poor in the country are strugling now and there is no end in the near future.
Just having elected govt in place is not Democracy….Have a look at the complete definition
Good editorial. makes sense to me. I read this comment from an Indian person in a newspaper about MM Singh: "I am sure the people of India will punish the current inefficient and corrupt government in the next elections. But unless and until, Manmohan Singh loses a motion of confidence in the parliament, he has a right to remain the PM. I would be the first one to oppose if some judge decided to throw out Manmohan Singh".
It appears we live in another world even when we are both so near geographically. It is civil society and not only the incumbent party should support democratic norms. Only then this experiment of democracy can work.
Totally agree! democracy is far more valuable than 60 million dollars.
I am afraid your good advice to the judiciary will fall on deaf ears. There is no room for the bigger national picture in their blinkered vision!