The Finance Bill unveiling the federal budget for 2008-09 springs only one surprise, and that, too, is political rather than economic. An amendment in the law relating to the strength of the Supreme Court is tagged to it, increasing the proposed number of judges from 17 to 29, thereby paving the way for the restoration of the PCO-2000 judges while retaining the PCO-2007 judges. More significantly, the message is that all the decisions of the Musharraf era indemnified by the old and new judges, but especially by the new ones after November 3, 2007, will be protected, including his mini-martial law of November 3, his election as president, the withdrawal of all the cases against Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Zardari via the NRO, and the February 18 general elections. The protection will be cemented by a constitutional amendment whose draft has already been floated by the PPP.
But the lawyers’ movement has been demanding exactly the opposite. It wants the old judges restored and the new ones sacked. And it wants the old judges to de-legitimise President Musharraf’s election and reverse the indemnification of his actions and decrees by the new judges.
Unfortunately, however, there are several problems with the lawyers’ approach. One, it tends to lean heavily in favour of the PMLN against the PPP. Indeed, Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, the main leader of the movement, has thundered that the “long march” is aimed at besieging the federal parliament in Islamabad and pressuring the PPP government to concede its demands.
Two, Mr Zardari would be a big loser if the NRO were to be scrapped and Mr Sharif a big winner if the 1999 coup and its subsequent decrees and constitutional amendments, especially the law stopping him from being prime minister for a third time, are outlawed.
Three, if the process of re-instating the old judges at the expense of the new ones is carried to its logical conclusion by withdrawing indemnity to President Musharraf’s actions, it would also end up de-legitimising the February elections on the basis of which the PPP has formed governments across the country. As potential grounds for a fresh election sooner than later, this would suit the PMLN and hurt the PPP.
Fourth, it is abundantly clear, given the PMLN’s support to the lawyers’ movement for party political reasons aimed at overthrowing President Musharraf, that the sacked judges are decidedly pro-PMLN and anti-PPP. In normal circumstances, any political bias would tend to disqualify judicial contenders for such exalted positions. But in the volatile circumstances of today, the restoration of the old, pro-PMLN judges, if it is at the expense of the sitting judges (who can equally be presumed to be pro-PPP), would make any PPP political dispensation in the country vulnerable to the point of gridlock at the hands of a hostile judiciary.
Fifth, the lawyers’ movement for an independent judiciary has unwittingly become the vehicle for the transmission of certain extremely reactionary political ideas and demands. Among legitimate slogans of “Go Musharraf Go” in the marching crowds are shrill voices from the defunct ideologues of the past demanding a rollback of Musharraf’s “flexible” Kashmir policy (that has rightly advanced the peace process with India), an end to his support to the war against Al-Qaeda and Talibanisation (which is in the national interest of Pakistan and is based on international law, notwithstanding policy shortcomings), and a “rehabilitation” of Dr A Q Khan (the rogue nuclear-proliferationist who has brought Pakistan to the brink of international censure, sanctions and inspections).
Under the circumstances, the success or failure of the “long march” epitomizing the lawyers’ movement and its various demands should not be measured in terms of its ability to achieve its singular goals – which are ridden with contradictions and are hugely problematic and politically biased – but in terms of its ability to help mould a productive transition to functional democracy instead of a convulsive confrontation that plunges the country into anarchy and economic meltdown. This would be a process that leads to (1) the restoration of the old judges and the retention of the new ones – a tactical political necessity – leading eventually to a pruning of the judiciary and cleansing of all politically biased, controversial and incompetent judges, old or new, chiefs and followers – a strategic pre-condition for an independent judiciary (2) the exit of “Red-Rag Musharraf” to facilitate the movement for civilian supremacy and rule of law and constitution (3) an acceptance of the right of existing federal and provincial governments to complete their full term and for political parties to contest the next elections under a neutral election commission.
As the lawyers battle with the government, the rest of the country is thinking of inflation, food, wages, taxes, unemployment, education, health, terrorism, law and order. Meanwhile, the government is struggling to beg and borrow oil to keep the country running (literally) while desperately trying to maintain some sovereign dignity in the face of American bombardments and Taliban encroachments in its tribal borderlands. Therefore we should welcome a financial budget that tries to facilitate the transition to political democracy and economic sustainability in a hostile domestic and global environment.