BETTER late than never. Former prime minister and PML-N quaid for life Nawaz Sharif has finally expressed regret for petitioning the Supreme Court in the so-called Memogate affair that rocked the previous PPP-led government’s foundations.
With the Supreme Court seemingly intent on returning to the issue and forcing the return of former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani, Memogate has been back in the news.
Several points need to be made here. It is important that Mr Sharif has expressed regret for his instigation of the Memogate affair and seeking to judicialise what was patently a civil-military spat.
As Mr Sharif once again fights to save his career in frontline politics and claims to be waging a struggle for democracy, it is necessary that he also publicly acknowledge and repent for his previous anti-democratic actions.
In particular, Mr Sharif’s association with military dictator Gen Ziaul Haq is a black mark on his political career that has not faded with time.
It is Mr Sharif’s inability or unwillingness to express remorse for past actions that partly fuels the opposition to the PML-N today and makes many a democratic actor reluctant to support pro-democracy actions that he may take now.
Memogate was also an early, though significant, indicator of a problematic judicialisation of politics in Pakistan. Setting aside whether the actions and events alleged in Memogate did or did not occur, it has never been clear why the matter was justiciable, i.e., whether there was a clear question of law, either in substance or procedure, for the judiciary to answer.
That problem only deepened in subsequent years; the judicialisation of politics is now rampant and arguably requires a fresh understanding between institutions to return all to their original, constitutional domains.
Certainly, the superior judiciary has an interest in ensuring the rule of law and is by oath required to uphold the Constitution. The superior judiciary should not be expected to turn away from a matter merely because it raises difficult questions of law and politics.
What is necessary is for all institutions to recognise that the Constitution envisages a separation of powers.
Just as Mr Sharif and politicians must recognise they must respect and accept court rulings, other institutions need to consider their actions in light of what the Constitution permits.
Finally, opposition parties, in particular the leading parties PPP and PTI, need to consider their present role in instigating encroachment of other institutions in the democratic domain. It is surprising that the PPP, having suffered the Memogate attack, is now seemingly willing to unlearn the lesson of the 1990s: when politicians fight among themselves, it is usually anti-democratic forces that win.
Meanwhile, the PTI’s perceived willingness to use virtually any means to hurt the PML-N is undermining the party’s credible political standing as a serious contender for power in the general election.
| More fake encounters |
No comments:
Post a Comment