The Zardari-judiciary stand off followed the Presidential notification appointing Justice Saqib Nisar as the next chief justice of the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court rejected the appointment. Zardari has had a troubled relationship with the judiciary particularly following Chaudhry’s decision to re-visit the NRO cases. Prime Minister Gilani also sided with Zardari by publicly stating that Chaudhry’s return to the bench was not final. ‘The reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhary following the Long March was as a result of an ‘Executive Order’ issued by me. Parliament was yet to approve the decision’, said Gilani in what was no more than a veiled threat to the judiciary. Opposition led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif cashed in on the controversy, and the Sharif brothers’ well publicized meetings with the army chief Gen Pervez Kayani caused much concern to the Zardari camp, though Kayani distanced himself from the politics.
In the end, Gilani ended the impasse – he invited CJP Iftikhar Chaudhary for a meeting, stating that “it is our country and we have to work in unison”, held closed door talks, and accepted the CJP’s recommendations “in the best national interests”. The President’s orders of February 13th was withdrawn and two judges favoured by CJP, Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Asif Saeed Khosa were appointed to the Supreme Court. The one plus with Gilani in the entire process was that he had kept President Zardari in the loop and thus avoided emergence of a new source of tensions.
IMPLICATIONS
In an effort to understand the implications of the latest presidential-judicial showdown, it is imperative to asses the issue from the perspective of the four main actors – the president; the prime minister; the military and; the Sharif brothers.
Since he became President in 2008, Zardari frequently confronted the judiciary; the two sides were rarely in agreement. More importantly, the decision by the Supreme Court to re-visit the NRO cases placed Zardari in a precarious position; the NRO gave him immunity from prosecution and if it is removed he could be made to face prosecution once again for the past cases. That might not have happened in the scheme of things as they stand in Pakistan but the talk of very possibility created nightmares.
]
Federal Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Babar Awan could be termed the villain of the piece since he told President Zardari that Justice Saqib Nisar was ready to be appointed as Lahore High Court Chief Justice – a move that was immediately rejected by the Supreme Court. Awan later approached Nisar and Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif, assuring them of their positions and that the judiciary was under no threat from the President.
Awan’s attempt to play both sides is questionable, particularly given the potential of the current crisis to escalate. He is known as a Benazir Bhutto loyalist. Conservative to the core and close to the right-wing JUI leader Fazlur Rehman, Awan favours implementation of Sharia law in Pakistan. It is possible therefore that he viewed Zardari as a pro-western and/or un-Islamic leader and as a result planned the confrontation. Because, Zardari would not have liked to jeopardize his position by taking on the popular CJP since he lacked popular base and complete loyalty of the PPP cadres.
From the start of his political career, Gilani has been a Benazir Bhutto loyalist. So it is inconceivable that he would allow measures to be initiated which could lead to the abrupt removal of Zardari and threaten the stability of the country. His statement following the Supreme Court’s rejection of Zardari’s notification should be viewed as no more than reiteration of a fact.
While it is unlikely that Gilani would have called on parliament to vote on the reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhary, his statement would have served as a reminder to the CJP of the government’s trump card should the issue have been taken further. More importantly, Gilani has always maintained his position of wanting to preserve democracy and serve the nation. While Gilani might not agree with Zardari on several matters in private, his public stance is dictated by the need to show ‘continuity’ in the thinking of the party. Put differently, it means that the Zardari-Gilani equation, while ideologically disparate on several fronts, will remain congruent in the public domain for the sake of democracy and the PPP.
LOSERS-GAINERS
It is equally important to consider another aspect of the issue. The President and Prime Minister are in essence catering to all sides of Pakistan’s political spectrum and, international stakeholders. While Zardari is viewed as a pro-US and reformist leader (a tag which has not earned him much support), Gilani is respected by either side of the political divide and by the military. These notions of ‘good politician’, and ‘bad politician’ have allowed the PPP government to survive for close to two years, and has enabled democracy to flourish in Pakistan, albeit rather precariously.
The loser in the short run is Nawaz Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz). His over-zealous criticism of Zardari and his open courting of the army were seen as cheap attempt to gain political mileage from a potentially devastating political crisis. He could have upped the ante with a view on forthcoming elections to local bodies in Sindh and Balochistan as also to strengthen his hold over Punjab where his brother is the chief minister. That his calculations have gone awry is clear from the reverses PML (N) suffered in the recent by-elections.
Yes, it is possible that the presidential-judicial showdown could have been an attempt to test the stubbornness of the judiciary, which has always been an integral branch of Pakistan’s ruling apparatus till the Long March happened. Now the Gilani-Iftikhar agreement in place, the judiciary may be mellowed a wee bit.
The role of the military vis-à-vis the judicial issue has been rather muted. Sticking to his initial stance of not interfering in politics, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen Kayani has maintained a safe distance and refrained from making public statements on the matter. Yet he allowed himself into frequent meetings with the Sharif brothers. Under the protocol, the military chief is not obliged to meet the opposition for a briefing. Possibly, Kayani used these meetings to send two signals to the quarters that mattered.
Firstly, given Zardari’s pro-US posture- his willingness to resolve matters with India, sidelining of the Kashmir dispute, reformist politics and apparent opposition to extending the tenure of the ISI chief and the COAS, it is possible the army chief was indicating that if the chips were down the military could choose to align itself with the more conservative PML-N and Sharif brothers.
Secondly, more importantly, Kayani was either trying to foster a long term relationship with the main opposition party with regards to challenging the PPP in the future and/or facilitating the return of former president Pervez Musharraf or warning the PML-N not to challenge the government in a manner which could result in its collapse.
Relations between Pakistan’s army and the US administration are improving following the arrest of key Taliban leaders and the promise to transfer US weapons to Pakistan. Kayani knows that military aid would come in only if the government is stable and democratic, since the US is determined to export its version of democracy.
FUTURE PERFECT
The presidential-judicial crisis is far from over; there are a range of issues – the NRO, 17th amendment, Article 58(2) B, just to name a few, are potential landmines. But the question is will any of branches of power be interested to rock the boat and walk the extra mile to pull down the government through an agitation or perpetuation of a crisis.
The speed at which the current crisis was resolved suggests that various branches of power in Pakistan are interested in preserving democracy and ensuring stability. Whether this is actually for the benefit of the nation or for their vested interests is debatable. However, given the opportunity cost it would seem probable that PM Gilani and COAS Kayani would work towards Pakistan’s stability, particularly as the latter stands to gain considerably from being in Washington’s favour.
It is likely that the judiciary, President Zardari and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif will follow suit – not necessarily as this course of action best serves their interests, but because any entity seen to be a threat to democracy and stability will lose favour with the public, Saudi Arabia and Washington.
