The dust has yet to settle on the swift passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, and now, the 27th is looming, perhaps containing provisions omitted from its predecessor. This time, however, the government appears unhurried, having addressed the threat of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's elevation to the Chief Justice, hanging like Damocles’ sword. The success in managing the 26th Amendment appears to have emboldened the government to pursue its agenda of bringing the judiciary under its thumb.
Regarding the 26th Amendment, the legal community’s knee-jerk protests on the streets turned out to be a damp squib, so the bluster of mounting a street movement, à la 2007, faded away. Seeing that not a mouse stirred its tail, in the words of Shakespeare, the PTI leadership too has chosen to take the amendments as a fait accompli, and agreed to join the new Supreme Judicial Commission. But perhaps curtains will take some time to finally drop on the play. Some petitions questioning the amendments’ validity and parliament’s legitimacy have reached the Supreme Court. But again, the lawyers are confused on the issue of whether the court or its constitutional benches are competent enough to address this issue—can a creation challenge its creator?
Some naively hoped that a brilliant-looking young PPP leader anointed at Oxford may not countenance the old tricks that tar our politics with the same brush.
I don’t mind that while pushing through the amendments the democratic baggage of principles and values, constitutional spirit, fair play, foresight et al, fell by the wayside. Very early in our history, we jettisoned this alien baggage, and since then our political landscape stayed largely free from these ideals in the first place. Some naively hoped that a brilliant-looking young PPP leader anointed at Oxford may not countenance the old tricks that tar our politics with the same brush. But then as they say in Persian, ‘Whoever goes into a salt mine’ becomes salt.’
The world, though, doesn’t approve that the end justifies the means. But where we find that the ends are equally dubious, why then fuss over the means? Both aligned well with each other, freeing the actors from any qualm of consciousness if they ever had any.
Dumping the principle of seniority, the chief justice of the Supreme Court has now been selected from among the three of equal rank and perhaps caliber. This way the amendments tell us that they have shut the door to mediocrity and irresponsibility.
Apart from this particular situation, it seems that our learning curve has not risen to admit the merits of recognising a senior from among the men of substance. Haunted by the imaginary fears of insecurity the government has landed itself into real trouble by reverting to a cherry-picking approach. Our national history, not so brief, says so. Each one ultimately has fallen victim to their favoured protégé. Once in power, the power conditions and shifts an individual’s thinking pattern. An initial and anticipated bond of trust and gratitude branded as the merit par excellence may by then evaporate. Citing examples from America or Britain to justify such handpicking is another way of ignoring the forest for trees as we have rarely allowed their culture of integrity and fairness to take root here. So, before diving into a stream, we must consider the burden we carry on our backs- salt or cotton?
A senior officer once remarked promoting someone from equals, it’s always a safe bet to maintain seniority. Remember, seniority is like your mother; you are always sure of it. But determining merit on abstract notions is akin to your father which you can only assume.
What can we expect of a judge who has made it to the Supreme Court after life-long grueling efforts? Well, do you want to be taken seriously for the next appointment? Must avoid annoying those in power. Make contacts, ingratiate yourself with the executives, impress them, and charm them. This way you may hope to take the pinnacle of your career. Anyway, ‘Big Brother is watching you’.
The foundational principles of democracy, Constitution, parliament, and laws will not answer the ever-disquieting quest for security but it is the public trust and perception of the state institutions that matter. Feel free to choose whatever label for the several HR movements and protests and violence in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one thing stands clear: the parliament, elections, and institutions are fast losing their influence and traction somewhere. Amendments will help only when they restore the public faith in the state institutions.
Taking the windmills for giants and rushing to battle them by minting new constitutional devices may not serve the purpose. When Shakespeare’s Hamlet says, ‘…there’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will,” indicating that true outcomes lie beyond our schemes, no matter how we craft them.