The state of emergency imposed early last month has been lifted, but it leaves behind deep scars on the body politic in the form of ordinances issued late last Friday night to secure constitutional legitimacy for President Musharraf's actions taken to guarantee his reelection.
The argument that emergency rule was imposed to contain terrorism did not hold water then, neither now, if the relentless suicide-bombings in different parts of the country are any indicator. Keeping up the pace, the terrorists hit within the cantonment limits of Nowshera on the very morning of the day the emergency was lifted.
The fact is that the state of emergency was proclaimed to hold the Constitution in abeyance so that the judges thought to be against giving validation to President Musharraf's candidature, could be removed from the scene before they could give their verdict. However, their removal through a dubious oath-taking scheme, kicked up a storm of protest by the legal community, opposition politicians and civil society, against the November 3 presidential move.
That storm of protest refuses to die down, on the contrary its relentless ferocity has not only driven asunder the unity of political opposition but has also put lawyers on warpath on the question of participating in the general election.
The new ordinances obviate the necessity to seek ratification for the imposition of November 3 emergency rule, says Attorney General Malik Qayyum. His logic: "Whatever amendments are made in the Constitution do not need ratification from the parliament".
Drawing authority from the Provisional Constitution Order, the President has amended the Constitution and his principal counsel insists the amendments need not be ratified, or, in other words, cannot be tinkered with by the parliament. That position is vigorously disputed by the lawyers' community and the political opposition. They say these ordinances are merely lines etched in sand, reminding that the parliament, which has the sovereign right to amend the Constitution, can also undo amendments, including these ordinances which are being projected by the government as equal to constitutional amendments.
THIS DEBATE, HOWEVER, WILL COME TO AN END WITH ELECTIONS: If the government manages to get a two-third parliamentary majority all the presidential acts of omission and commission would get indemnified. What would happen otherwise one cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. The issuance of these ordinances under power drawn from the PCO and official insistence that their ratification by parliament would not be required, seem to stem from apprehension that the government is not sure of getting a two-third majority.
But there is a disturbing ethical dimension to the whole issue of pressing presidential powers drawn from a controversial piece of law, PCO, into service to secure indemnity for removal of judges who were thought to be planning to deny the President an equally controversial reelection.
Was it not enough that the country had been ruled for eight long years under a quasi-military arrangement after putting aside the "sham" democracy, and then another 'martial law' had to be imposed for a repeat show of same very theatrics. One cannot countenance to such a constitutional sin. One would, however, hope now that the state of emergency has been lifted there would be no let or hindrance, on any pretext, to fuller play of electioneering.
With hardly three weeks left before going to the polls and Hajj, Eid-ul-Azha and Quaid's birthday anniversary falling in between, the caretaker government is expected to provide the best possible cooperation to the candidates. An overdose of security-centred arrangements, including an unduly enlarged list of sensitive polling stations, would only steal the heat from the campaigning, which in turn would negatively impact the voters' turnout.
Similarly, the suffocating curbs on media freedom must be lifted immediately, also because this freedom was taken away coincidental to imposition of the emergency rule and now that emergency has been lifted the media's freedom should be ensured. A free media is universally accepted as election-fever generator, and it is all the more relevant to the present day conditions in Pakistan where not much is visible in the form of rallies and corner meetings.
In fact, there is a growing perception that the boycotters of elections are going to prevail now that they would be able to take out rallies and 'judicial bus' caravans across the country. The release of a slew of ordinances on the eve of lifting the state of emergency does not portend well for the elections. Such legal contrivances provide only a false sense of security, and could be, and should be, avoided.
Comments
Comments are closed.