Anytime a verdict is issued to convict a person, it is time for deep introspection. When Panama verdict was issued I had the same feeling as I have after the verdict of the treason trial of General Musharraf.
In my public statements on justice and judiciary, I have emphasized that judges should refer to constitution, law and past precedence rather than engage in theatrics referring to Mario Pizzo or Khalil Jibran. Judges should not act as fiction writers that suit an artist or political activists to promote democracy. Their role is to act as neutral arbiters to provide justice to competing factions in a functioning democracy.
Our judges have shown an increasing tendency of independence from external pressures which is a good development but they are still far from adhering strictly to the tenets of the law. They should try to bury the ideas of judicial restraint or doctrine of necessity that has resulted in the tribal culture and undermined the emergence of a democratic state where people hold the power to choose their agents and hold them accountable at the ballot box. It is common practice around the world that the leader of a crime is punished first before prosecuting accomplices and facilitators. It was not inappropriate to reject the expanding list of people in the case.
The reaction to the court's verdict is also disturbing. Generally, a tribe that is hurt by a verdict issues threats and questions sanity of the judges. How is it possible that a judge that was held in high esteem is declared insane the next day? The actions of a person cannot be labeled as insanity rather it should be investigated by the experts first. The law minister does not have the right to declare anyone insane but can file a reference to ascertain it by health experts.
In our intolerant culture, we have this tendency of calling dissidents, opponents or members of other tribes infidels and traitors. I have personally experienced it hundreds of times as supporters of Imran Khan have labeled me insane whenever I disagreed with his childish decisions.
But when I challenge them to an analysis of myself and their cult leader they run away. I am not alone many other activists have experienced similar attitudes and today if we call a judge insane then tomorrow anyone can be labeled as such. Can a sane General fully aware of his oath to constitution abrogate it?
I have been a staunch opponent of military acting as a political party. Musharraf would not have dared to overthrow an elected government if he were not a member of a tribe that has unchallenged authority over the violent power of the state. The reaction of the military to the court order as well as the detailed judgment suggests the whole institution is implicated. This is a troubling development and detrimental to the premier institution of the country.
Musharraf should file a review and appeal to get a fair trial and seek justice but the institution itself should not get embroiled in it. Musharraf not only abrogated the constitution but also held it in abeyance. He is in the court of history which will award its verdict in time. But military as an institution has a more serious challenge to address. How can an individual use the institution to further their ambitions? This has happened multiple times and even now we are facing the same situation. Uniformed in-service senior staff members cannot stand up to a chief as it will damage the unity of command. I request the retired staff level officers to get together and ponder over this challenge faced by the institution about how to balance individual ambition over institutional interest.
They have to come up with a roadmap to protect the institution. If they fail to act then the situation has the potential to spiral out of control.
Politicians for their part have not lived up to the expectations. We have a long history of tribalism in the political parties that have no tradition of internal democracy. The parliamentarians are busy in personal attacks to appease party heads while neglecting the parliament as a forum for policy debate. There seems to be no code of ethics and it is free for all environments of mudslinging.
We are all flabbergasted that a judge wrote that a convict should be hanged in a public square. But the judge is not the first one, this public hanging was promoted by cabinet members of the government which was installed through an engineering project. Those statements were cheered as a crusade against corruption and not condemned with ferocity. But the current government is not the first one to blame. Earlier, the PML-N aspirant for PM slot has claimed that he will drag the corrupt on the streets and hang them.
I believe the current republic is not workable because it has tribalism in its foundations. This tribalism has now created a deadlock among state and democratic institutions. I have been suggesting repeatedly that we have to start working on building the second republic and a delay can be fatal. We have now reached that situation. I have proposed a dialogue table for the initial discussion on it. One condition for building the second republic is for all the tribes to give up some of their narrow interests so that a viable social contract can be developed. I am doing my best to get public support behind this. I need your help with that.
I am not sure the national government idea can deliver the deep reforms that are required. I am consulting our team and will send our position to the government and opposition parties in the next few days.