Disappointment for doomsayers

To the utter disappointment of quite a few doomsayers the government will write the letter allowing withdrawing the letter sent earlier by the then attorney general, Malik Qayyum, to the Swiss authorities advising them of the government of Pakistan's decision to withdraw from proceedings against President Asif Ali Zardari. The government ministers say the much-feared 'clash of state institutions' has been pre-empted, but not yet. What type of communication is sent, it's the question to which by now there is no answer.
Within the next seven days the law ministry has not only to get its draft of the proposed letter approved by the Supreme Court it has also to confirm its timely receipt by the Swiss government. That indeed injects uncertainty, given the mutual mistrust that tends to obtain between these two state institutions. The chances of scrupulous compliance or unscrupulous denial are balanced. Till the time the court met to hear Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf the air in Islamabad was thick with vibes that the PPP will not write the letter even at the cost of another prime minister. Some give credit for this change in the government's stance to the urgings of the coalition partners who President Zardari met the night before while others claim that it is another manifestation of his political acumen, a much-needed attribute to survive in a Byzantine state.
In his submission before the apex court, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf could not be more categorical in carrying out implementation of the Supreme Court order to withdraw an earlier communication sent by the then-Attorney General for Pakistan, Malik Qayyum. By 2007, President General Pervez Musharraf wanted to call it a day by handing over power to the political leadership in the country. The principal political players of the time did agree but subject to a quid pro quo that graft cases against their leaders under the NRO were withdrawn. As the vagaries of time would have it, two years later, in 2009, the NRO was declared void ab initio by the apex court, exposing many, including President Zardari, to the rigors of accountability. If it's the 'middle course' we don't buy the argument, given that the law doesn't offer such an option. Having convicted Yousuf Raza Gilani the court couldn't be expected to be different now. That 'middle course' was available in the seven-member bench judgement which had offered six options, quite a few of which did offer the middle course. The jury on the case is still out.
But that said the fact remains that this is a positive development, in that under para 178 of the judgement the government was required to write a letter to the Swiss attorney general seeking withdrawal of earlier communication sent in 2007. If the letter is sent to that effect the order of the court will have been met. There was no mention of President Zardari in the first communication nor would the new letter mention him. If consequently the cases against the president get revived that's not the concern of the court, at least as of now. As for the legal aspect of the case the court went an extra mile in accommodating the government position. The government successfully bought time on one pretext or another despite some PPP leaders' objectionable and often contemptuous statements against the apex court judges.
But as for the expected political fallout of the development the government has clearly shifted from its hard line position taken throughout the court proceedings. Writing of the letter was taken as 'trial of BB's grave'. Though legally it was not so because in her death she stands absolved of all of it, but this was the creed of the rank and file in the party, making any flexibility next to impossible. That's no more the ruling coalition's position and over time public perception too has changed; for the case had shifted the elected government's focus from its mandated responsibility of working for the good of the people to the life-and-death struggle for political survival. We expect and hope in the remaining period of its tenure the government would attend to its mandated responsibility - even if in this lame duck year it would be occupied by other than public welfare considerations.