Imran Khan played footsie with the establishment to oust Nawaz Sharif. Result transmission system (RTS) went out of order in the dead of the night to hand over victory to Khan on a silver platter. The empire raised the finger. As the newly-appointed prime minister, Khan’s first speech presented a tall order. He clubbed together a team to translate his dream of Naya Pakistan into a reality. The cherry-picked team members were largely the same old horses that had served in earlier regimes. To deflect the criticism, it was said that Khan was honest, well-meaning, and well-intentioned, and it was the rule of the game to have such players in the team.
But with Khan in the saddle, Pakistani citizens have suffered immensely. Ironically, his performance can be best described in his own words: "Main Inn ko Rulao Ga", "Ghabrana Nahi", "Jo marzi Kar loh" and "Chor, Daku". He ruled by striking fear in the hearts of his political opponents -- "Give in or face a NAB reference". His political rivals preferred to go to jail than surrender to Khan.
He tried to asphyxiate the media. Many anchorpersons were thrown out of the mainstream media and had to start YouTube channels. He became a self-styled lecturer on religion and morality. With fingers running over the prayer beads, he lectured the nation for hours, like "a devil quoting from the scripture". His idea was to build "Madina ki riyasat". However, he contravened the principles on which the State of Madina is established.
His team has shown a flair for name-calling and has indulged in the worst mudslinging this country has witnessed. He sowed the seeds of chaos and economic turbulence. His motto was "Crush and divide the opposition to keep it at bay". His team members sullied their hands in corruption yet he didn't bring them to account. The Transparency International Pakistan's report on corruption was an eye-opener.
Visible cracks emerged in Khan's love affair with the establishment when he delayed the appointment of DG ISI. His political naivety could be gauged by the fact that he decided to cut the umbilical cord that attached him to the establishment. Slowly he got stuck in a cul-de-sac.
The establishment started considering Khan a spent force. It became "neutral". Sensing the wind was blowing in the opposition's direction, his party members jumped the sinking ship. Khan had to taste his own medicine. But surrender is not in Khan’s dictionary. He beat the drums of war – “Let's go for the jugular. Send Army Chief packing”. But in doing so, he will put himself in the harm's way. Democracy will be derailed. The narrative, "vote ko izzat do", mended the ways with the establishment.
But Khan claims to have a plan up his sleeve -- let the meeting of the parliament be adjourned for an indefinite time. What a plan! The opposition is not sitting still. It has weighed all options, including a sit-in in the parliament, if the speaker refuses to take up the no-confidence motion.
Which brings us to the halls of the judiciary, and Article 63-A of the Constitution. "There is no individual vote, rather a collective vote of a political party," interprets Justice Muneeb Akhtar. If this interpretation prevailed in the larger bench of the Supreme Court, the members of the parliament would not have to attend the parliament sessions, let alone vote for the legislation. Resultantly, the much-sought-after presidential system would come into action, thanks to judicialization of the parliamentary system.
Article 63-A is self-contained, self-explanatory, and self-evident. It provides a complete procedure and mechanism concerning the defection. No amount of interpretation can change its wording. The defection is to occur when all of the procedure is carried out in a certain method – the pattern is laid down in Article 63-A. Can a member be served a "show cause notice" before the vote is cast? Certainly not. It is akin to putting the cart before the horse.
The ruling party has slapped the would-be defectors with such notices. To state the obvious, showing intention to do a certain thing is one thing and to actually do it another. But, in criminal jurisprudence, both "mens rea" and "actus rea" constitute a crime.
Article 63-A has become the political punch bag. The ruling party is trying to spin the simple wording to its advantage. The speaker of the National Assembly is intent on riding roughshod over the Constitution. He must not act on the prime minister's whims and wishes. He must rise above his political affiliations and partisanship, and bridge the gulf between the government and the opposition by following the Constitution. However, Speaker Asad Qaiser is ready to dance to Imran Khan's tune. The reference under Article 186 of the Constitution was filed to drag the Supreme Court into the political thicket, and to get a favourable interpretation.
The Supreme Court could have stayed clear of the controversy by declining to go along with the ruling party, just like it did in the presidential reference seeking opinion on secret balloting.
Undeniably, the bench of the Supreme Court could have included all the members. But, the constitution of the five-members bench widened brought the gulf between the pro-Justice Qazi Faez Isa judges and anti-Qazi Faez Isa judges out in the open. Justice Qazi Faez Isa's views on democracy, rule of law, adherence to the constitution, and his insistence on acting upon his oath "without fear and favor" do not sit well with his colleagues, who toe the establishment’s line. Anyone with a smattering of judicial politics can guess the possible outcome.
"Mujhe Kyun Nikala" to "Mujhe Kyun Nikal rahay ho" is a tragic political story with many twists and turns. It’s a story about how a friend became a foe and vice versa. With his back against the wall, Khan has become desperate. He is ready to become a political martyr.
Khan may be having sleepless nights. He may be made to resign before he sacks the umpire. But the umpire must be on guard too.
The nation is on tenterhooks, as the endgame will decide the future of Pakistan. Who will be the ultimate beneficiary? It is not hard to guess.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He tweets @zaeem8825. He can be contacted at zaeem.bhatti89@gmail.com.
But with Khan in the saddle, Pakistani citizens have suffered immensely. Ironically, his performance can be best described in his own words: "Main Inn ko Rulao Ga", "Ghabrana Nahi", "Jo marzi Kar loh" and "Chor, Daku". He ruled by striking fear in the hearts of his political opponents -- "Give in or face a NAB reference". His political rivals preferred to go to jail than surrender to Khan.
He tried to asphyxiate the media. Many anchorpersons were thrown out of the mainstream media and had to start YouTube channels. He became a self-styled lecturer on religion and morality. With fingers running over the prayer beads, he lectured the nation for hours, like "a devil quoting from the scripture". His idea was to build "Madina ki riyasat". However, he contravened the principles on which the State of Madina is established.
His team has shown a flair for name-calling and has indulged in the worst mudslinging this country has witnessed. He sowed the seeds of chaos and economic turbulence. His motto was "Crush and divide the opposition to keep it at bay". His team members sullied their hands in corruption yet he didn't bring them to account. The Transparency International Pakistan's report on corruption was an eye-opener.
Visible cracks emerged in Khan's love affair with the establishment when he delayed the appointment of DG ISI. His political naivety could be gauged by the fact that he decided to cut the umbilical cord that attached him to the establishment. Slowly he got stuck in a cul-de-sac.
To state the obvious, showing intention to do a certain thing is one thing and to actually do it another. But, in criminal jurisprudence, both "mens rea" and "actus rea" constitute a crime.
The establishment started considering Khan a spent force. It became "neutral". Sensing the wind was blowing in the opposition's direction, his party members jumped the sinking ship. Khan had to taste his own medicine. But surrender is not in Khan’s dictionary. He beat the drums of war – “Let's go for the jugular. Send Army Chief packing”. But in doing so, he will put himself in the harm's way. Democracy will be derailed. The narrative, "vote ko izzat do", mended the ways with the establishment.
But Khan claims to have a plan up his sleeve -- let the meeting of the parliament be adjourned for an indefinite time. What a plan! The opposition is not sitting still. It has weighed all options, including a sit-in in the parliament, if the speaker refuses to take up the no-confidence motion.
Which brings us to the halls of the judiciary, and Article 63-A of the Constitution. "There is no individual vote, rather a collective vote of a political party," interprets Justice Muneeb Akhtar. If this interpretation prevailed in the larger bench of the Supreme Court, the members of the parliament would not have to attend the parliament sessions, let alone vote for the legislation. Resultantly, the much-sought-after presidential system would come into action, thanks to judicialization of the parliamentary system.
Article 63-A is self-contained, self-explanatory, and self-evident. It provides a complete procedure and mechanism concerning the defection. No amount of interpretation can change its wording. The defection is to occur when all of the procedure is carried out in a certain method – the pattern is laid down in Article 63-A. Can a member be served a "show cause notice" before the vote is cast? Certainly not. It is akin to putting the cart before the horse.
The ruling party has slapped the would-be defectors with such notices. To state the obvious, showing intention to do a certain thing is one thing and to actually do it another. But, in criminal jurisprudence, both "mens rea" and "actus rea" constitute a crime.
Article 63-A has become the political punch bag. The ruling party is trying to spin the simple wording to its advantage. The speaker of the National Assembly is intent on riding roughshod over the Constitution. He must not act on the prime minister's whims and wishes. He must rise above his political affiliations and partisanship, and bridge the gulf between the government and the opposition by following the Constitution. However, Speaker Asad Qaiser is ready to dance to Imran Khan's tune. The reference under Article 186 of the Constitution was filed to drag the Supreme Court into the political thicket, and to get a favourable interpretation.
Khan may be having sleepless nights. He may be made to resign before he sacks the umpire. But the umpire must be on guard too.
The Supreme Court could have stayed clear of the controversy by declining to go along with the ruling party, just like it did in the presidential reference seeking opinion on secret balloting.
Undeniably, the bench of the Supreme Court could have included all the members. But, the constitution of the five-members bench widened brought the gulf between the pro-Justice Qazi Faez Isa judges and anti-Qazi Faez Isa judges out in the open. Justice Qazi Faez Isa's views on democracy, rule of law, adherence to the constitution, and his insistence on acting upon his oath "without fear and favor" do not sit well with his colleagues, who toe the establishment’s line. Anyone with a smattering of judicial politics can guess the possible outcome.
"Mujhe Kyun Nikala" to "Mujhe Kyun Nikal rahay ho" is a tragic political story with many twists and turns. It’s a story about how a friend became a foe and vice versa. With his back against the wall, Khan has become desperate. He is ready to become a political martyr.
Khan may be having sleepless nights. He may be made to resign before he sacks the umpire. But the umpire must be on guard too.
The nation is on tenterhooks, as the endgame will decide the future of Pakistan. Who will be the ultimate beneficiary? It is not hard to guess.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He tweets @zaeem8825. He can be contacted at zaeem.bhatti89@gmail.com.