For the first time in Pakistani history, two critical institutions of the state are raising their voice for a truly autonomous role in the body politic of the nation. These are the judiciary and the media. The judiciary has been a witting agent of the executive for six decades and sanctioned the worst transgressions of parliament and constitution alike by civilian autocrats and military dictators. The media has been an unwitting player, subjected to castration and inducement alike, at the bidding of the same military-bureaucratic establishment. But now things are changing dramatically for both.
First, the military-bureaucratic establishment is undergoing a significant “revolution” from above. The mainstream political players and parties – who at one time or another were “created” or “nurtured” by the military to play roles defined by GHQ and then junked when they resisted – are no longer prepared to play second fiddle to the old establishment led by the military. The PPP under Benazir Bhutto was the first to take up cudgels in 1989-90 and paid the price for resisting the generals, first in 1990 and then irrevocably in 2007. In much the same way, Nawaz Sharif was derailed in 1999. So now, in principle, both the PPP and the PMLN are “anti-establishment” parties, regardless of any limited and tactical compromises each may be compelled to make with the “establishment” to cling to power – the PPP has handed over foreign policy to the military and given a second term to the army chief – or spring to power – the PMLN did not challenge the army chief’s extension and has not disagreed with his execution of foreign policy.
Second, both the judiciary and the media have carefully assessed the true significance of the weakening of the military-bureaucratic establishment because of the concurrence of the two mainstream parties and made a forceful play to secure and establish their own independence. The media-judiciary alliance was a key factor in the long struggle for the restoration of the ‘independent’ judges, and the judiciary has returned the compliment by vowing to protect the media’s independence from the ravages of the state and government. Thus, on the one hand, the media and judiciary are with the mainstream politicians and political parties as these seek to claim autonomy from the military; but, on the other hand, they are determined to extend their own space vis a vis government and parliament on the basis of their past suffocating experience of an unbearable and unaccountable executive regardless of the fact that it may or may not be democratically elected.
This raises two key questions in the political transition underway. First, to what extent and by what methods or devices should the media and judiciary, singly or jointly, secure their independence or autonomy from an elected government and legislature? Second, should each be free and autonomous from the other, or should they make a holy alliance against the common protagonist, ie, the government and parliament of the day, even to the extent of pushing for “regime change”?
Some people would argue that the media should always play the role of a watchdog over all institutions of the state, which include the judiciary, and the judiciary should always address the rights and wrongs of any situation, as enjoined by law and constitution, regardless of which institution is involved, including the media. In other words, neither the media nor the judiciary should be blind to the excesses of the other, and just as each holds the balance for the state, government and opposition, each must hold a mirror to the other. Others disagree. They say that the media and judiciary must make common cause against the politicians at all times because the latter are corrupt, unaccountable and despotic and likely to mow the former down individually because of the latter’s hold over the levers of power like the police and bureaucracy.
In recent times, Pakistan’s media and judiciary have consciously chosen to take the latter view – that, regardless of which among them is right or wrong individually in any situation, they have to stand together against the government and parliament of the day. Therefore the judiciary’s controversial – some would say “adventurous” – forays in the realm of the executive and parliament are to be blindly supported by the media while the media’s often unsubstantiated allegations and accusations against the party in power are to be blindly protected by the judiciary.
But there are two serious, possibly unintended, consequences of this approach. First, the blind collusion of the media and judiciary is seriously destabilising the PPP government to such an extent that it is unable to get on with the job of governance, even if its ability to provide that is limited in the first place. In other words, it is a recipe for regime change rather than regime improvement. But this is not the business of the media or judiciary. Second, the blind collusion of the two is discrediting all politicians and elected parliamentarians, in opposition or government alike, thereby indirectly serving to sustain the myth of the military as the ultimate saviour of the country. In other words, the blind collusion of the media and judiciary is serving also to provide a platform for a collision of the military with the civilian stakeholders of power, to the advantage of the former. Once again, this is most undesirable, even from the point of view and interests of the media and judiciary.
Therefore the conclusion is inescapable. While an alliance of the media and judiciary against the autocrats and dictators is desirable, it should not play into the hands of those who are waiting in the wings to sabotage the historical and democratic transition in civil-military relations that we are now witnessing in Pakistan. There are collective and individual red lines for the media and judiciary, like those for the military, government, opposition and parliament, which must not be crossed, regardless of the provocations.