Islamabad: The politics as pursued in Pakistan is no ordinary politics as happens in most democratic societies. The politicisation of judiciary, at all levels, be it at the lowest level or at the Supreme Court, is a stark reality. Simultaneously, the way judicial decisions have been used against politicians of different hues in different eras, one can only say that it is a clear case of hyper-judicialisation of politics.
Iskander Mirza, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto and even Yousuf Raza Geelani can all be called victims of military strongmen, or of judiciary. Did the Pakistan Constitution come in the way of either the military generals or judges in any way? An honest answer is that it could not prevent unconstitutional behaviour of individuals in different eras throughout its history.
The Pakistan government’s declaration that it wants to ban Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI) of Imran Kham is a clear case of trying to use law to continue politics by other means. Right now, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s PML-N government is dependent on outside support of PPP of Bilawal Bhutto for a majority in the National Assembly. The government has gone on record saying it wants to use Article 6 of the Constitution to ban PTI.
Application of laws in a very selective manner, not to dispense justice, but settling scores with rivals (treated as enemies), is a practice rampant in Pakistan. A biased application of Article 6 may lead to unravelling of whatever little social cohesion is there, endangering politicians as also judges.
The next question is: Are PML-N and PPP on the same page on the issue of banning PTI under Article 6? Unfortunately for Mr Sharif, PPP has already distanced itself from the decision to ban PTI. Then? Will Mr Sharif’s government be able to ban PTI without the PPP support?
Under Article 6, persons can be said to guilty of “high treason’’ if their actions lead to the abrogation, subversion, suspension or holding in abeyance of the Constitution, b the use of force or show of force or other unconstitutional means. Incidentally, the punishment prescribed for “high treason’’ is life imprisonment or death.
In case of PTI, former President Arif Alvi, Deputy Speaker and a couple of other top leaders of PTI are sought to be charged under this article by the government. Does PML-N seriously believe that banning PTI finish it as a party? Finish its ideology, its support base or lead to its supporters becoming radicalised?
A broad understanding about Article 6 is that it was enacted to safeguard against military, or possibly civilian, dictatorships abrogating, subverting or suspending a democratic constitutional order. General Ayub Khan, General Zia ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf hardly faced any problems in getting their way despite the Constitution not envisaging a military dictatorship. For that matter, the Constitution does not endorse a civilian dictatorship either.
The Constitution not having any provisions for military or civilian dictatorships did not prevent Pakistan from being ruled by dictators of both types.
Will politicians be henceforth charged with high treason every time a judicial verdict says that they have acted unconstitutionally?
If violations of the constitutional provisions are interpreted as acts of high treason, as defined in Article 6, it can become a deadly political tool in the hands of ruling party of the day. Of course, the establishment can easily then attempt to remove, by death or life imprisonment, political opponents.
The judiciary stands to gain powers exponentially in such a situation and the political parties will get marginalised. Not that all political parties are not marginalised already, and the Pakistan Army remains lone institution untouched by social turmoil witnessed often.
Are former President Arif Alvi, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, former Speaker Asad Qaiser, former deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and former law minister guilty of high treason under Article 6 of the Pakistani Constitution? It is being said that they all were complicit and their actions lead to the initial rejection of the no-confidence motion against Imran. It is also being said that their actions were grossly unconstitutional.
Two years ago, the federal cabinet under Shehbaz Sharif had framed a committee to see if treason proceedings could be initiated against them. The decision was alleged based on the Supreme Court judgment on the issue of the no-confidence resolution against Imran’s government and dissolution of the National Assembly.
Will gross unconstitutional actions by politicians become equal to (=) high treason in Pakistan henceforth? Punishable with life imprisonment or death.
The PML-N government’s knee jerk reaction of announcement to ban PTI under Article 6 reeks of abject helplessness, not strength. Ironically, the government decision has come close on the heels of the issue of PTI as a party getting recognition from the Full Bench of the Supreme Court. It needs to be remembered that the PTI got verdict in its favour by a 8-5 majority with Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa found on the side of minority five.
