Imran Khan’s PTI has returned to parliament and the Supreme Court after its street protests and long marches failed to provoke a military intervention to oust PM Nawaz Sharif. But this doesn’t mean he has accepted the right of the PMLN government to complete its term. Far from it, he intends to use the forum of parliament to discredit parliament and the forum of the Supreme Court to discredit the judiciary if these institutions do not further his ambitions and objectives.
Shortly after the general election results were announced in 2013, Imran Khan conceded that Nawaz Sharif had won them fair and square. One year later, however, he quit parliament and stood atop a container in Islamabad for four months, spitting fire and venom and screaming blue murder at the Election Commission, all the while conspiring with rogue elements in the military to overthrow the PMLN government. When that failed, he spilled over into the streets and demanded a judicial commission of Supreme Court judges to investigate his allegation that the election had been stolen from him. But when the judicial commission didn’t oblige, he denounced it as a kangaroo court. Two months ago, he quit parliament and made a last ditch effort to provoke violence and nudge the military to intervene. When that failed, he went back to the Supreme Court with a petition to disqualify Nawaz Sharif and vowed to accept its judgment whether through a commission or bench. But when the court suggested a commission, he refused to accept it and threatened to boycott it if the bench didn’t hold against the prime minister. Now he has returned to parliament to disrupt its proceedings and put pressure on the judges by questioning the impartiality of the incoming chief justice.
The PPP has been less opportunistic and more circumspect. It has frowned on Imran Khan’s anti-democracy conspiracies and refrained from fuelling PTI’s street agitation even though it has many complaints against the federal PMLN government for siding with the military establishment against its Sindh government, as a result of which Asif Zardari had to flee the country and Dr Asim Hussain had to cool his heels in the clink. The PPP is trying to reinvent itself under Bilawal Bhutto in time for the 2018 elections and wouldn’t mind seeing the back of Nawaz Sharif earlier because that would weaken the PMLN and raise its own prospects accordingly. But its tactics are confined to parliamentary point scoring or static statements from Bilawal signifying no great threat. Indeed, apart from its demand for an Act of Parliament focusing exclusively on Nawaz Sharif, with the onus of proving innocence on the prime minister rather than his guilt on the accusing opposition, its other demands — parliamentary committees to oversee CPEC and National security and a full fledged foreign minister — are easily negotiable.
Meanwhile, the new army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, is not likely to play politics in his first year like his predecessor Gen Raheel Sharif did. This is clear from the ringing changes in the military’s high command that he has made, suggesting a lower profile role for the ISPR, a less interventionist-aggressive role for the ISI at home and abroad, and a more cooperative attitude towards the Sindh government by the Sindh Rangers and Karachi Corps HQ in tackling terrorism in Karachi. In other words, we can expect better civil-military relations, another dimension of which may be a more constructive and result-oriented approach to neighbours India and Afghanistan and superpower USA. This augurs well for the stability of state and society in Pakistan.
There only remain two nagging issues. One relates to the legitimacy of the statement read out by the prime minister in his defense in parliament in which he claimed to have a record of the money trail from the UAE and Saudi Arabia with which the London flats were bought. His lawyer claims it was a “political” statement which should not be read literally while the opposition insists the prime minister must make good his claim in the court, failing which he should be disqualified for lying in parliament. The second relates to the question of having a SC bench or special investigative commission to determine the case against the prime minister.
So the ball is going to be in the Supreme Court for much of 2017. The main question is: will the judiciary under CJP Saqib Nisar bear up to Imran Khan’s pressure tactics? Can we be sanguine that there will be no cause for apprehending any miscarriage of justice? Fortunately, CJP Nisar is not beholden to the prime minister for his elevation. The automatic application of the seniority principle has given greater independence to the CJP and his fellow judges. So we can realistically hope that they will stand their ground and not deliver the sort of populist “insaf” that Imran Khan desires at the expense of the murder of the law and constitution.
Shortly after the general election results were announced in 2013, Imran Khan conceded that Nawaz Sharif had won them fair and square. One year later, however, he quit parliament and stood atop a container in Islamabad for four months, spitting fire and venom and screaming blue murder at the Election Commission, all the while conspiring with rogue elements in the military to overthrow the PMLN government. When that failed, he spilled over into the streets and demanded a judicial commission of Supreme Court judges to investigate his allegation that the election had been stolen from him. But when the judicial commission didn’t oblige, he denounced it as a kangaroo court. Two months ago, he quit parliament and made a last ditch effort to provoke violence and nudge the military to intervene. When that failed, he went back to the Supreme Court with a petition to disqualify Nawaz Sharif and vowed to accept its judgment whether through a commission or bench. But when the court suggested a commission, he refused to accept it and threatened to boycott it if the bench didn’t hold against the prime minister. Now he has returned to parliament to disrupt its proceedings and put pressure on the judges by questioning the impartiality of the incoming chief justice.
The PPP has been less opportunistic and more circumspect. It has frowned on Imran Khan’s anti-democracy conspiracies and refrained from fuelling PTI’s street agitation even though it has many complaints against the federal PMLN government for siding with the military establishment against its Sindh government, as a result of which Asif Zardari had to flee the country and Dr Asim Hussain had to cool his heels in the clink. The PPP is trying to reinvent itself under Bilawal Bhutto in time for the 2018 elections and wouldn’t mind seeing the back of Nawaz Sharif earlier because that would weaken the PMLN and raise its own prospects accordingly. But its tactics are confined to parliamentary point scoring or static statements from Bilawal signifying no great threat. Indeed, apart from its demand for an Act of Parliament focusing exclusively on Nawaz Sharif, with the onus of proving innocence on the prime minister rather than his guilt on the accusing opposition, its other demands — parliamentary committees to oversee CPEC and National security and a full fledged foreign minister — are easily negotiable.
Meanwhile, the new army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, is not likely to play politics in his first year like his predecessor Gen Raheel Sharif did. This is clear from the ringing changes in the military’s high command that he has made, suggesting a lower profile role for the ISPR, a less interventionist-aggressive role for the ISI at home and abroad, and a more cooperative attitude towards the Sindh government by the Sindh Rangers and Karachi Corps HQ in tackling terrorism in Karachi. In other words, we can expect better civil-military relations, another dimension of which may be a more constructive and result-oriented approach to neighbours India and Afghanistan and superpower USA. This augurs well for the stability of state and society in Pakistan.
There only remain two nagging issues. One relates to the legitimacy of the statement read out by the prime minister in his defense in parliament in which he claimed to have a record of the money trail from the UAE and Saudi Arabia with which the London flats were bought. His lawyer claims it was a “political” statement which should not be read literally while the opposition insists the prime minister must make good his claim in the court, failing which he should be disqualified for lying in parliament. The second relates to the question of having a SC bench or special investigative commission to determine the case against the prime minister.
So the ball is going to be in the Supreme Court for much of 2017. The main question is: will the judiciary under CJP Saqib Nisar bear up to Imran Khan’s pressure tactics? Can we be sanguine that there will be no cause for apprehending any miscarriage of justice? Fortunately, CJP Nisar is not beholden to the prime minister for his elevation. The automatic application of the seniority principle has given greater independence to the CJP and his fellow judges. So we can realistically hope that they will stand their ground and not deliver the sort of populist “insaf” that Imran Khan desires at the expense of the murder of the law and constitution.