After months of haggling, the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms finalised its draft on the proposed Judicial Commission to appoint senior judges. To some, even this isn't enough; a Karachi-based English newspaper equates the move with saying "good-bye" to the relevant provisions of the Charter of Democracy (CoD) because the Commission doesn't give Parliament the clout promised by the CoD.
Indeed, in a democratic dispensation - least bad system of governance - the Parliament decides all issues of state governance but should dispensation of justice form a part of governance, or an independent check thereon? Appointing senior judges with parliamentary consent is flawed because it gives rise to a conflict of interest. Besides, the record of democratic regimes doesn't promise prudent exercise of this solemn authority.
All elected governments were dissolved on charges of corruption and political intolerance because they used power as the raison deter for blatant unilateralism that rapidly eroded their popularity. With a corrupt feudal class, high illiteracy level and voter's ignorance about the power of the vote, Pakistan remains unfit for governance via a set-up wherein power revolves largely within a close circle of the powerful and the corrupt.
Despite its chequered record, the sitting judiciary had expressed a resolve to check military take-overs and partisan parliamentary practices by providing a check on state governance. For committing this error, the judiciary is being made subservient to the whims of a parliament that has largely failed in equitable legislation and checking corruption, and also finds even a Bachelor's Degree unnecessary for the MPs. Yet, it wants to appoint senior judges.
This track record doesn't justify parliamentary approval of the senior judges; in fact, it is bound to create doubts about the independence of the judiciary. That democracy is a deceptive system of governance has been proved by mismanagement of the world's great democracies including Britain that claims to have the 'mother' of all parliaments.
By 1976, things became so bad that martial law became imminent. The army spearheaded by MI5 offered premier Harold Wilson two choices; resign or get ready for castigation. Wilson resigned. The reward: investigation into his role in the unexplained death of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell and Wilson's Soviet connections, were hushed up, he was knighted, and made a life member of the House of Lords - all under a democratic dispensation.
The imbalance in the social and economic systems created by Thatcherite response to Labour's mismanagement of the state caused lasting damage. Living in the UK during 1976-78, and again during 1985-88, I saw the worst of the mismanagement of the state by a Labour government and the flawed undoing thereof by the Conservatives. John Major's dicey role in the Bosnian tragedy was another dark chapter in the British history.
Recently, Britons were duped by the famous 'dodgy dossier' which, quite unashamedly, was sanctified by premier Tony Blair; he and his press aide Alistair Campbell now represent what self-respecting Britons call the black sheep. As time passes, the on-going investigation into Britain's participation in the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq will reveal a lot about the integrity of this twice-elected British Premier.
According to "Sleeping with the Devil", a book by an ex-CIA official Robert Baer, many US politicians remain on the payroll of a Middle Eastern state, implying thereby that democracy in the US also elevates to power foreign agents. In 2001, the President's office remained in a state of suspension for 16 days because the presidential election was rigged with the help of a corrupt administration and a subservient judiciary.
That rigged election installed George Bush in the White House and his cabinet comprised self-acclaimed religious fundamentalists who were also notorious for corruption, while serving in the corporate sector. The deeds of the past US regimes are so culpable that the US got the mandate of the International Criminal Court amended whereby crimes of the past US regimes would not be called into question.
India - world's biggest democracy - is no better. In not too distant past, the ruling party appointed 72 ministers in the Uttar Paradesh assembly of 140 to prevent its own downfall. The mess in Bihar assembly was a monumental success in rendering democracy susceptible to endless corruption. Finally, the ethnic rage that characterises India's politics is also the gift of democracy being used to polarise the society racially.
Japan, another great democracy, enjoys the distinction of electing an amazing number of prime ministers with shady backgrounds, many were later sacked on bribery charges. In Europe, the legacy left behind by Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl was a disaster. The treatment the Western democracies meted out to Z.A. Bhutto, Lumumba, Mandela, Mossadegh, Nkrumah, Nasser, Salvador Allende, Shah Faisal and Soekarno is no secret.
Nor is the history of those countries any secret where corrupt regimes were installed, supported, and then destroyed when they over-did what their masters in the Western democracies asked them to do. Remember the likes of the Bothas, Generals Franco, Noriega, Pinoche, Suharto, and Zia, and Mobutu, Marcos, Saddam, and Shah of Iran?
Businesses now finance political campaigns and end up owning governments that serve their interests at the expense of the electorate. Greed injected into the system by powerful business lobbies makes trade policies self-serving; then they are imposed on the world via WTO. The irony is that, in the process, the West itself has become their target. Consequently, poverty has become the number one problem globally.
Not surprisingly, therefore, instead of offering 'development' loans, the WB now extends loans for alleviating poverty. This explains why the terrorism (rooted in deprivation and denial) is the biggest problem we face. What applies here is the principle that applies to computers - garbage in, garbage out. Greed and injustice, cleverly shrouded in a smokescreen of propaganda about 'freeing' the markets caused this chaos, all courtesy democracy.
The mess created by the Western democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is a monument to how elected leaders arrogate to themselves the authority to trample both domestic and international law, and lie to their people to treacherously obtain a mandate for committing horrible crimes against humanity. Given this background, should parliamentarians have the right to appoint the judiciary - the only institution that can sustain a semblance of fairness and equality?
The authority to appoint senior judiciary calls for pertinent, immaculate, and unbiased credentials. How many Pakistani politicians can credibly claim having all these credentials? Aren't Pakistan's political parties known for virtually worshipping their leaders and party interests rather than fairness, justice, and equality? Will the judges they appoint be blessed with these qualities? At best, the answer to all these questions is "I am not sure."