Zardari’s tirade | Pakistan Today

Zardari’s tirade

  • And issues to ponder on

On the first day, a broadside, stopping short of  the extreme that Zardari had gone to in June 2015. The second day, a  toned down  version, though  without any change in the original stand.

Few would disagree that all constitutional  bodies  should strictly adhere  to the basic law of the country  which defines each one’s role.  Parliament has to make laws,  executive   to run the country,  judiciary  to deliver justice  and the army  to defend Pakistan against external aggression  under the directions of the federal government. But are all these bodies strictly adhering to their roles?

Zardari has reminded the CJ that  he should be concerned about the ‘’900,000 cases’’ pending in the judicial system instead of “visiting other places and raising objections”.  The CJ has  taken suo moto notice of the fee limit for  private medical colleges, of traffic blockades caused by  VVIP movement and of shrinking water supply  at the Katas Raj  temple pond but the issue of delayed and costly justice faced by thousands of litigants  daily is by no means of lesser  importance.

There is  a long history of the establishment  removing elected governments  and installing parties loyal to it, condoning  corruption and  bad governance on the part of their chosen leaders.  What is wrong  with Zardari’s comment that it would have been better to hold ‘transparent elections’ letting political parties to form  a government through consensus?

Zardari however is a practitioner of realpolitik rather than a starry-eyed idealist sticking  to principled positions. He takes a stand on principles only when it  suits his politics. When it doesn’t, principles can be thrown overboard.  He wants accountability for all, including judges and generals,  but  withdraws Farhatullah Babar’s resolution supporting the demand when it does not suit him.

It is argued that  elected governments  fail to take timely decisions about  urgent issues facing the masses and someone has to intervene to do the needful.   But don’t other institutions also  make colossal blunders, some of them of  disastrous proportions? Wasn’t the misadventure in Kargil one, to quote just a single example? Wasn’t  the doctrine of  necessity  harmful for the nation? Would other institutions also allow politicians to  intervene to rectify their wrongs?



Top