Candid Corner
- An opportunity, nevertheless, for undertaking genuine reform
“Is it not a noble farce wherein kings, republics and emperors have, for so many ages, played their parts, and to which the whole vast universe serves for a theatre?”
–Michel de Montaigne
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines farce as “a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterisation and ludicrously improbable situations”, while the Oxford Dictionary defines it is as “a funny play for the theatre that is based on ridiculous and unlikely situations and events”.
When I look back over the last few weeks, both these definitions appear to fit perfectly into the way political parties and the judiciary have conducted themselves in the task of dealing with the case of granting extension to the Chief of Army Staff (COAS).
Three more years for the COAS was a done thing till the former chief justice took notice barely seven days before his tenure was to end by activating a petition which had remained pending for over twelve weeks. This effort was vociferously supplemented by all mainstream political parties in the opposition, heaping ridicule on the government for having notified the decision. They demanded its reversal.
By taking notice of it on the basis of a controversial petition and instructing the legislature to amend relevant laws within a stipulated period of time, the judicial organ of the state intruded unlawfully into the executive domain, thus setting a dangerously unhealthy precedent. In the meantime, it granted a six-month extension to the COAS pending adoption of amendments by Parliament.
On its part, the government first moved a petition for review of the order before the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, it promulgated an ordinance to regulate the appointment. When this was subjected to criticism by the parties of the opposition, the government started deliberating to take it through the legislature. And, lo and behold, in a rare display of camaraderie, and contrary to their grandiose proclamations, the parties of the opposition joined hands with the government in piloting the requisite amendments through the two houses of Parliament. It has since become law.
These were the ingredients of the farce which was enacted before a full house with people wondering loudly about the respective positions of the political parties and an incredible display of wicked expertise at somersaulting. The slogans pertaining to ‘respect for vote’ and opposition to extension for the COAS were buried six feet under, washed away in the tsunami of their desperation for proving their loyalty and reiterating subservience to the very powers they were fighting against.
Not going into the merit of the position that political parties of the opposition had taken prior to the commencement of this sordid drama, it exposed their reality as a flock of vultures, ready to pounce upon every opportunity for promoting a compromised narrative, thus displaying abominable bankruptcy of principles and morality. It is not that they would have been inimical to extending the tenure of the incumbent COAS. After all this had been done in the past also, most recently during the last government of the PPP. They were only inimical to the fact that they were not in the saddle for stage-managing this and the credit for this would go to some other political party. In the wisdom of John Mortimer, “farce is a tragedy played at a thousand revolutions per minute”, which is as fast as their colours changed. Or Karl Marx who said that “history repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce”.
There has been a strong reaction to these somersaults by the supporters of the parties and their legislators. Being the principal proponent of the narrative of ‘respect for the vote’, the senior members of the PML-N expressed bitter resentment about the unconditional surrender and the dictatorial manner in which the decision had been taken. In a party meeting, there was an environment of open rebellion and incisive questions were asked from the parliamentary leader who, when unable to absorb the pressure, advised the legislators to contact the leadership directly. The party is in virtual shambles as a consequence of this abysmal display of rank opportunism solely to serve the interests of the oligarchs.
It may also be time to rid the institution of the presence of a bunch of corrupt people inducted as judges by that disgraceful aberration– Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. They have brought nothing but shame to the institution
The state of the PPP is equally pathetic. In spite of trying to hide behind the supremacy of Parliament ruse in implementing its unprincipled agenda, it suffered immense embarrassment, within the party ranks and in the public domain. The leadership has been subjected to scathing criticism for their flip-flops in joining forces with the government whom they were subjecting to vitriolic criticism ever since it assumed charge in the country. They were not even willing to accept the legitimacy of the elections that catapulted PTI into power. It is because of this that the party had to issue special messages for its followers to understand the so-called ‘rationale’ behind the necessity of the decision taken. The PPP leadership have also criticised the PML-N for not consulting them before taking the decision, thus tearing apart the fabric of their much-touted unity.
Grant of extension in the service of the COAS should never have been made controversial. It was and remains the exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister. But, the discussion that this unfortunate episode has sparked off may be for the ultimate good of democracy.
For one, we should realise that there are no genuine political parties in the country. The ones that exist are oligarchies which are exploited for advancing the political interests of certain families who take decisions in a manner that suits their core interests. The method is utterly despotic and does not encompass what may or may not be in the interest of democracy or the state. Once again, this establishes the need for holding genuine intra-party elections to move the selection of leadership away from the stranglehold of the self-anointed oligarchs and affording a fair and equitable opportunity to all members to build their credentials for leading their respective political parties.
It is also visible that there is enhanced awareness about this reality and legislators are willing to question the substance and the manner of the decision-making process as has been evidenced by the mini-revolts within the mainstream political outfits. This should lead to optimism that the political parties in Pakistan may be forced to introduce a democratic culture within their folds which would strengthen their parliamentary credentials.
For good or for bad, the political parties have demonstrated that they can work together if they want to. This spirit should be promoted to build consensus for adopting and implementing legislation that is needed for improving the system and its delivery mechanism, especially to the marginalised communities.
As for the judiciary, this episode underwrites another sordid chapter in their history where it tried to impose judicial dictatorship upon the democratic process of legislation. This must be checked. As a test case, political parties should join hands in formulating and implementing effective parliamentary oversight on the working of the judiciary.
It may also be time to rid the institution of the presence of a bunch of corrupt people inducted as judges by that disgraceful aberration– Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. They have brought nothing but shame to the institution.