In the context of the case relative to implementation of Supreme Court's decision, directing the government to write to the Swiss authorities to reopen the money-laundering case against the Zardari-Bhutto clan, a media debate is on and in the view of some political analysts, the 'paltry' laundered money of USD 62 million is not worth derailing the hard-earned democracy, in exchange for the application of the rule of law.
This amount of US $62 million may be paltry for some, but the issue is a matter of supreme principle, rightful ownership, retribution and holding the guilty to account. The Judiciary and of course, the impoverished nation, has been demanding the return of above amount in addition to all the laundered money by the Bhutto-Zardari clan and stashed in Swiss bank accounts.
By analogy, the question here is what is more important, $62 million or perpetuating a sham democracy. This issue has three dimensions to it: (1) Should the corrupt be allowed to scoot, scot-free, with the looted national wealth and should a money launderer be given immunity from prosecution and conviction? Or (2) Should sham democracy be not 'derailed', allowed to flourish as the country's economy collapses and Pakistan becomes a failed State? and (3) Should rule of law be compromised save to a corrupt to the core and genetically incompetent dispensation, seeking refuge by raising the boggy of sanctity of constitution to save a single person at the cost of the entire country?
Comments
Comments are closed.