03-08-2013

Battle of wills: Imran Khan in court

IT is a wholly unnecessary episode, but not necessarily just for the reasons discussed in Courtroom No 1 yesterday in the Supreme Court. Twice Imran Khan`s counsel claimed that his chent had never had the intention to commit contempt of court nor had he in any way committed contempt by criticising the Election Commission of Pakistan or election returning officers for their conduct during the general election. The position Mr Khan staked out was an expected one ― and arguably even a reasonable one. But the Supreme Court bench appeared to want Mr Khan to seemingly issue an unreserved apology for the words he uttered that have been construed as an insult by the superior judiciary.
Mr Khan now has nearly a month to finesse a written statement that can bridge the gap between what the PTI chief is willing to admit and what the court expects him to say. It can only be hoped that the next few weeks produce a familiar Pakistan-style distraction that allows the country to leave behind this quite vexing and bizarre of episodes. But that may be a forlorn hope given that both Mr Khan and Chief Justice Chaudhry are not exactly known for backing down on questions of ego and personalreputation. Even if a solution is to be found ― and surely, it is hard to conceive of Mr Khan being put on trial or being sent to prison for his comments relating to the conduct of the general election ― that still leaves a broader issue of a court that has waded deep into controversy on many fronts and which does not appear to be reflecting about the cost that is inflicting on the judicial institution.
By now, with just a few months left until the completion of Chief Justice Chaudhry`s tenure, it is extremely unlikely that the style and substance of the court`s workings will see a significant reversal. If anything, with the clock rapidly winding down on the chief justice`s tenure, there may be a temptation to cap off a historic chief justiceship with judicial fireworks of even greater intensity. But strong as that temptation may be, if institutional strengthening and deepening the democratic project are indeed the ultimate goals, the temptation must be avoided. After December, there will still be a Supreme Court and it will need to be as strong, fair and independent as it has ever been. Judicial overreach or a hair-trigger in the months ahead will surely undermine that ultimate goal.

Still a slippery slope: Pakistan-US ties

LIKE a cliché-ridden soap opera, the Pakistan-US relationship also seems to revolve around familiar plot lines in which the protagonists wax lyrical about their strong relations and common interests while the irreconcilable differences are far too obvious to those watching the show. Secretary of State John Kerry`s visit to Pakistan, which was his first since having replaced Hillary Clinton and also the first since the new government has arrived on Constitution Avenue, was a successful one ― on the surface. The American official congratulated Pakistan on its smooth democratic transition; praised its reconciliatory efforts towards Kabul; met a number of civilian political leaders and also announced the resumption of the famous strategic dialogue that had been brought to a halt by the Salala attack in 2011.
However, beyond the smiles and the photo ops, the words exchanged once again highlighted the differences that keep the Islamabad-Washington relationship on a permanent roller coaster ride. There is little doubt that ‘cross border militancy`, which Kerry called `a key aspect of our strategic dialogue` could once again turn the smiles into scowls. And though he didn`t mention North Waziristan, his references to `safe havens` were simply a less intrusive way of pressing the old American demand ― that militants operating out of Pakistan had to be stopped by use of force if necessary. Similarly, the confusion over what the secretary of state said about drone attacks and of course Islamabad`s constant refrain about ending them was also a reminder of the many sticking points in the relationship. Indeed, both the countries have been at this juncture before where they have spoken of a new beginning. But the problem is that this beginning can quickly turn into a dead-end because of the militants that use the Pakistan territory to strike into Afghanistan. Or for that matter, a particularly lethal drone strike or another cross border foray like Salala can also transform today`s friends and allies into scorned lovers. A happily ever after ending is still not in sight.

Undemocratic move: Ban on Bangladesh party

THE Dhaka high court`s ruling, whose consequences debar the Jamaat-i-1slami from taking part in the general elections due early next year, raises a question or two about the future of democracy in Bangladesh. The three-judge judgement declared the country`s leading Islamic party illegal, saying its charter breached the constitution, it cannot register with the election commission and, thus, will not be able to take part in any elections. Independent of the nature of the Jamaat charter and philosophy, the issue must be examined from the point of view of its impact on Bangladesh`s politics and society already rent by violence following the death sentence given to a Jamaat leader for war crimes. The country needs to strengthen its nascent democracy, and this cannot be done by keeping religious forces out of the electoral process. Every polity has its quota of radicals and rebels without a cause. Ultimately it is their own philosophy that marginalises them, provided the state permits a free play of democratic forces.
There is no doubt Bangladesh`s constitution is secular, but it is the very antithesis of secular philosophy if the judiciary`s interpretation infringes upon citizens` right to elect their representatives. Secularism does not mean war on dissent; in fact, in a democratic context it implies granting the citizen the right to differ. To say that this right in a given situation could `breach` the constitution amounts to a serious digression from democratic principles. Besides, while affirming the constitution`s secular character, the document`s preamble declares that the aim of the state is to realise `through the democratic process` a society in which `fundamental human rights and freedoms ... will be secured for citizens`. The judges will be hard put to explain how Thursday`s judgment upholds the constitution`s preamble

__________________
LAIS-AL-INSANA ILA MA SA-AA