Daily Times

The lawyers’ community on Thursday observed “Justice Iftikhar Day” all over Pakistan. The call for this observance was given by the Sindh High Court Bar Association and endorsed by the Pakistan Bar Council, the apex body of the legal profession. The lawyers rallied to the cause in all the big cities of the country, but the demonstration in Lahore was significantly big. The Lahore Bar Association (LBA) took out the rally from Aiwan-e-Adl. The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) lawyers joined the LBA rally at GPO Chowk, from where they proceeded to Charing Cross, to be joined by the workers of Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaf, Jama’at-e Islami, Awami National Party, Khaksar Tehreek, Concerned Citizens of Pakistan, Students Action Committee, Women Action Forum and Pakistan Medical Association.
As the lawyers shouted “go Musharraf go” and called for the restoration of the former chief justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and 60 other judges, a more important event also took place on Thursday: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, was released from house arrest after spending the constitutionally decreed maximum confinement of 90 days. He came out and declared that in the coming elections the PMLQ would be roundly defeated — if the polls were fair — which would signal the departure of President Pervez Musharraf as he had been supporting the King’s Party blatantly. Leading the “rejectionist” front, one might have expected Mr Ahsan to denounce the mainstream parties’ decision to take part in the elections as has been his position until now but his statement assumed that the polls would be the right medium through which to say goodbye to President Musharraf.
The lawyers have played a significant role in representing Pakistan’s civil society in the days when the judiciary was subjected to history’s routine maltreatment by the Musharraf establishment. But as never before, governments of the future in Pakistan have been put on notice about how they will have to treat the judges. As never before, the common man in Pakistan has become aware of the judicial lacunae that allowed military and autocratic takeovers of the political system in Pakistan. The political parties have acknowledged the force of the argument behind the lawyers’ movement and are expected to put in place a judicial order that will guard honest judges against punitive action by the executive. The lawyers are sure to insist that new constitutional provisions are made for the induction of the judges at the higher levels of the judiciary. But the lawyers have tended to upstage the political parties, which has caused an unnecessary political rift in the country.
Our history tells us that lawyers, as professionals of independent means, have underpinned our political movements. They have lent their expertise to the political parties and inclined them to fight their battles constitutionally, in the court of law, rather than in the streets. Even the “argument” for Pakistan was strictly legal and was formulated by a lawyer who presided over the Muslim League. The street agitation in the case of the dismissal of Justice Chaudhry was needed, but the lawyers’ movement, as that of civil society in general, had to mesh with the two mainstream political parties in the field to challenge the incumbents. In today’s “indirect” representative democracy — unless it is primitive and “direct” as that which poisoned Socrates — it is the political parties that “mediate” between civil society and the state. The lawyers must therefore align themselves with the decision of the PPP and the PMLN to participate in the February 18 elections.
It is only by negotiating with the two big parties that the lawyers can set the judicial system of the country right. They must support them in return for pledges to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Just getting support for a generally expressed rejectionism will not get the lawyers very far. One would hate to see their movement consigned to oblivion once the transition of power has taken place in Islamabad. The lawyers must not feel satisfied by meaningless calls made by such organisations as Pakistan Ex-Servicemen’s Society asking President Musharraf to step down after handing over to the sacked Chief Justice and appointing Justice Bhagwandas to the Election Commission. Indeed, the lawyers cannot have missed the irony of General (Retd) Aslam Beg sitting among his fellow generals in Islamabad unrepentant of his contempt of the Supreme Court.
The lawyers’ movement must avoid at all cost participation in the political polarisation between those who accept the elections and those who don’t. The lawyers must keep in mind the hardships faced by the citizens who have cases pending in the court of law. They must look closely at the fatigue that is setting in among lawyers on strike who are increasingly under pressure from the needs of livelihood. Now, for the first time, the judicial system can look forward to meaningful reforms after the elections. That is a prospect that must not be jeopardised. g

A SAARC strategy against terrorism?

President Pervez Musharraf, talking to the Sri Lankan foreign minister on Thursday, urged member countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to enhance cooperation for the elimination of “terrorism and extremism” in the region. The addressee in this case was India, to put it without prevarication, which still has complaints about Pakistan’s conduct. The other addressee is Bangladesh although that could be unintentional. The trouble in Nepal and Sri Lanka has to do with India to some extent.
President Musharraf has not been able to normalise relations with India despite his many positive assertions and support from the people of Pakistan. His assurances to India on cross-border terrorism are not credible because the jihadis are still around in Pakistan, some of them still protected by the state. The Hindu extremist reaction in India owes much to the Pakistan-supported jihad in Kashmir. The “Indian trouble” in Balochistan is actually India talking to Pakistan; and there is nothing SAARC can do if this “dialogue” is not handled well by revisionist Pakistan. As for Bangladesh, most of the religious extremist elements there are jihadi, trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Another SAARC member, Afghanistan, has similar complaints against Pakistan. If Pakistan wants a SAARC strategy on terrorism, it will have mostly to “give” because there will not be any quid pro quo like “give us Kashmir first”. *