Pakistani prime minister buys time in Supreme Court conflict

Pakistani Prime Minister Ashraf could face removal from office if he doesn't resolve the deadlock between the Supreme Court and the government.

|
Anjum Naveed/AP
Pakistan's Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf waves upon his arrival at the Supreme Court for a hearing in Islamabad, Pakistan on Monday, Aug. 27.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has given Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf three weeks to resolve a standoff between the judiciary and the government and reopen corruption cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The current government has already lost one prime minister. Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was ousted in June for refusing to write a letter to Swiss authorities, effectively reopening the corruption case. Newly appointed Prime Minister Ashraf was asked to do the same thing, but refused as well. If he does not comply with the courts, the country risks losing yet another prime minister.

The delay in any ruling on the matter adds three weeks to the issue that has already lasted more than two and half years. And analysts say it is eroding the legitimacy of the independent Supreme Court, something Pakistan prides itself on, and is threatening rule of law.

“People are getting sick and tired of this deadlock. There is rule of law on one side, and the government on the other. This case is becoming an unwanted guest in the minds of everyone,” says Fahd Husain, a noted columnist and a news show host.

The motive behind the court's decisions to push for the reopening of the conviction case has divided observers. Some accuse the court of deliberately undermining the democratically elected Pakistan People's Party (PPP). Others say that the court is following through on its constitutional responsibility. Most, however, think the tussle indicates personal vendettas rather than principled stances.

The case against Mr. Zardari dates back to the 1990s, when he was accused of taking kickbacks for government contracts, but his party, the ruling PPP, maintains that the cases were politically motivated.

In 2007, a deal between former President Perrez Musharraf and the wife of Zardari, Benazir Bhutto, reportedly led to the dropping of all accusations in a presidential ordinance. But the law was repealed by the judiciary in December 2009, and the cases were reopened.

Battle of egos

Mehreen Zahra Malik, editor and columnist at The News, a daily English paper, says that people are starting to see this as just a battle of egos now.

“With such [little] time left for the government to complete its tenure, why cannot the judiciary just wait for the people to vote this government out?” Ms. Malik says.

But she says that the judiciary sees this deadlock differently.

“The court thinks that if it can make the most powerful man, the president of the country, bend to law, Pakistan will establish itself as a country where rule of law prevails. But this top-to-bottom approach is weakening rule of law, because there are so many other issues, like energy crisis, militancy, etc., in Pakistan that need to be addressed which affect common people, and they are being ignored, leading to public disillusionment,” Malik says.

On the other hand, legal experts feel that the decision to give more time to Ashraf was a reasonable one. “The judiciary had boxed itself in a corner,” says Feisal Naqvi, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, who regularly writes for different newspapers. “The court has to have a spotless reputation, which it does not anymore.”

Mr. Naqvi says that the current deadlock between the two institutions in the country has been skillfully played to the advantage of the government.

If another prime minister is sent home, it could help the PPP-led government in the coming elections. “If the judiciary regularly keeps dismissing prime ministers, it can lose some of its own legitimacy,” he says.

“In any situation when two entities are fighting with each other, everyone thinks both are to be blamed for the clash and that is what is happening now,” Naqvi adds.

Fresh elections?

General elections are scheduled for February, when the current government’s tenure ends.

But Mr. Husain says by giving more time to the prime minister today, the Supreme Court is looking for some sign from the government for early elections.

“The court is not going to give up on the letter but has given up on this government to write the letter. In the coming days, if we do not see any headway toward a consensus being built on a caretaker government by political parties, this prime minister may just have to go home, too,” Husain warns.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Pakistani prime minister buys time in Supreme Court conflict
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/0827/Pakistani-prime-minister-buys-time-in-Supreme-Court-conflict
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe