Pakistan is wracked by multiple troubles, the latest being the ongoing confrontation between its highest judiciary and the government. Pakistan’s (former) prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani was consigned to the reformatory, so to say, on a charge of contempt of court for not complying with the Supreme Court’s direction to urge the Swiss authorities to reactivate the old corruption case against President Asif Ali Zardari, for stashing away $ 60 million in Swiss banks. when he was a minister in his wife, Benazir Bhutto’s cabinet. The court would not accept the argument that his boss, Mr Zardari, was immune from it as the president of the country. The matter is further complicated because with Gilani’s conviction on contempt recorded on April 24, all his decisions and that of his government (including the national budget) between this date and his departure might become null and void — though President Zardari has reportedly absolved him of any responsibility. But this too could become another issue between the Supreme Court and the president. As of now, the Supreme Court has directed the new Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf to follow up the court’s direction regarding pursuing the corruption case against Mr Zardari. He might go the way of his immediate predecessor, Mr Gilani, if He ignores the court’s order. In other words, if this game of musical chairs continues, Pakistan might end up with a non-functioning government, necessitating new elections before the due date sometime next year. To make matters even more complex, the Lahore High Court has reactivated its direction to President Zardari to quit his party political post of co-chairman of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party or else face contempt proceedings. However, coming back to the Supreme Court, one might ask: is the court following the rule of law in pursuing this matter or there is something else going on? One can never be sure in these matters because humans, even the purest among us, are not robots working on set programmes. It is quite possible to rationalise one’s prejudices and vendetta into higher principles of public good. The judges, of course, tend to follow the law. This is where the problem lies because an argument is made that the law and its international practice preclude the president of a country — Mr Zardari in this case — from prosecution during his time in office. The Supreme Court has overruled this defence by virtue of being the highest judicial authority in the land and hence the ultimate arbiter — whether one likes it or not. Hence Mr Gilani and his government had to lump the court’s decision, and this might happen again with the new prime minister. A follow up question is: wouldn’t the same objective be achieved by waiting for the elections next year when, it looks like, this government will be defeated in a popular referendum of sorts, thus creating a convergence between the court’s objective and the people’s will? And with Mr Zardari no longer the president, he will have no legal immunity. The advantage of this approach is that Pakistan will escape a political and judicial upheaval, and the court will avoid becoming a controversial entity. At a time when Pakistan is once again trying to restart its democratic process, the reputation of its highest court and its integrity are a fundamental part of it. The court and its Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, played an important and courageous role in helping to restore democratic civilian rule after an eight-year long dictatorship of General Musharraf. Chaudhry became a folk hero in Pakistan, particularly to its urban middle class. He still enjoys considerable support in Pakistan for his crusade to rid the country of corruption that envelops its political class of all descriptions. But, for the first time, judicial activism that looks like supplanting the executive and legislative branches of the country’s governance is creating criticism. So much so, even the Chief Justice’s own son has been ensnared into it with allegations of a large amount of bribes from a wealthy real estate tycoon, which probably is part of the political horse-trading Pakistan is going through. The point though, is that Pakistan’s highest judiciary appears politicised. This is rather unfortunate and hence the need for treading judiciously so soon after the democratic process was restored. In the circumstances, it might make sense to let the political process take its own course at the soon-to-be-held elections. Pakistan already has too many problems weighing it down. Its economy is a mess. Inflation is taking its toll, stoking popular unrest. There is a serious energy shortage expressed in the Orwellian expression of load shedding. Terrorism is, of course, a major issue, compounded with ethnic and sectarian violence. The state violence in Balochistan appears to have no end in sight. It is difficult for an outside observer to comprehend the political-judicial shenanigans overtaking Pakistan’s establishment when there are so many other, perhaps more pressing problems confronting the country. At such a time, its political class is engaged in the task of tearing each other apart. The opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) are gunning for Zardari and have found in the judiciary a useful ally because of its reputation for probity and integrity. At the same time, the Zardari government’s record in office is abysmal — in terms of both governance and corruption — and it does not appear to have many friends among the people. The problem though, is that Pakistan’s entire political class is so discredited and reeking of corruption that, with the exception of a few individuals that this correspondent has no knowledge of, none among them can claim to be lilywhite pure. The PTI, led by Imran Khan, is still untested, having not been exposed to the lures of political and economic power so far. In other words, Pakistan’s polity is a disaster zone. Tomorrow’s rulers might find themselves in the same situation as the present government is if the political class does not heed the message that they are there to serve the people and not to rob them. If not, and in the absence of any viable alternative — with military rule having been tried for half of Pakistan’s existence and found to be as bad or worse than its self-seeking politicians — people might be tempted to join the extremist/terrorist outfits causing more havoc. In that situation, the judiciary too will become irrelevant. Therefore, instead of trying to prove a point that everyone, including the prime minister and, for that matter, the president is equal before the law as interpreted and upheld by the country’s highest court, it might make sense to let people make their judgment known in the elections next year and to allow an elected civilian government to complete its full term. The normal democratic process of periodic elections, with people deciding the politicians’ fate, might make them more responsive to their wishes. This cycle of the abruptly disrupted/destroyed democratic political process, through military coups or whatever, is keeping Pakistan in a constant state of uncertainty and near-anarchy, damaging its evolution into a normal functioning state. It is not to suggest this will solve Pakistan’s problems, but it might create, over time, a workable system. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au