Why are Pakistani politicians always running to courts?

Ishtiaq Ahmed

The above question was sent today by my esteemed friend Mushtaq Alam from Bradford, UK. Firstly, in any country Judiciary is an essential part of overall governance where the three arms of governance – parliament (legislator), law & order and (police & courts) defense (arm forces) – sit alongside each other to regulate the affairs of the country.

In any given democratic setup, the Parliament should function by the principle of ‘government by the people for the people, making laws, determining foreign policy, regulating internal affairs and making provision for facilities and services for the benefit of all citizens.

The function of Law & Order agencies is essential to safeguard and protect the citizens against all forms of violence and abuse. In this respect, the function of the judiciary in the broadest sense is to facilitate and provide justice and to interpret and adjudicate on laws in accordance with the constitution of the country when there is/are conflicts of interpretation as an independent arbitrator.

Ideally, around each of these state functions, there should be clearly defined boundaries, demarcation lines and protocols to avoid any overlap and abuse of roles and assigned powers. In Pakistan, at least in practical terms, these boundaries and parameters seem to be blurred. This is partly because the elected members to the legislature perceive to have an overwhelming right to interfere in all aspects of the state functions and administration.

Personal agendas often overpower professional and institutional integrity. This should not be confused with the collective responsibility of elected members to probe, monitor and evaluate the functioning of institutions which is their prerogative as elected representatives.

Functional officials are appointed for their loyalty to the political party or parties that make up the government in return for favors for their incumbent political masters. Thus, often with a change of government, a frequent occurrence in Pakistan, we see wholesale removal of top officials and appointments of new ones. Sadly, the judiciary also does not escape this party’s politically motivated ‘chop and change’ which leaves them vulnerable to political manipulation –the master that pays, calls the tune syndrome.

Against this background, the question by Mushtaq Alam is perhaps better and more succinctly answered by my friend and an esteemed political elder Mohammed Ajeeb CBE who, when I posed the question to him, candidly replied, “It happens because they do not abide by the Constitution. There is a lack of understanding of constitutional rigmarole and some would interpret it according to their wishes.

“Secondly this tactic is used to delay the process, to buy time to use propaganda against each other to confuse the electorate.

Thirdly it is an integral part of the  political culture where ‘ i am always right and you are always wrong.” In conclusion, Mohammed Ajeeb says, “ it comes down to  political immaturity with a rigid and obstinate mindset and not willing  to compromise even when there may be no other way to resolve an issue.”

My friend Shazia Mehboob Tanoli, an astute observer of the political scene in Pakistan, takes the view that politicians generally lack credibility with the public. Hence, they frequently turn to the Judiciary as a perceived independent arbitrator to legitimize their actions. Personally, I can only agree with her.

Amongst others, the three acknowledged principles of good governance are Openness and Transparency, Rule of Law and Ethical Conduct. Sadly, Pakistani politicians generally do not score very highly on any of these. Hence, their reliance on the‘ Independent Arbitrator’ is a must ‘saving grace.’