The army's intervention to broker the reinstatement of the chief justice has caused concern, write FARHAN BOKHARI, JAMES LARMONTand DANIEL DOMBEY
THE PUBLIC celebrations marking the return of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as chief justice of Pakistan’s supreme court yesterday were triumphant.
The mood in the heavily guarded presidency in Islamabad, by comparison, was one of humiliation and defeat.
Only four years ago Chaudhry’s appointment as the top judge handpicked by Pervez Musharraf, the former military ruler, was greeted differently. There was disquiet, even foreboding, that the general’s man was heading the judiciary.
An unexpected turn of events doused these fears. Musharraf fired his judge and the unassuming Chaudhry emerged at the centre of Pakistan’s most robust civilian movement. In a country where civil society was supine until two years ago, lawyers rose up around him as a champion of the rule of law.
The decision by Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari to reinstate Chaudhry in the face of growing street protests has raised hopes of a new era of judicial independence at a time when a weak secular legal system is losing ground to Sharia law, its religious equivalent. Although the compromise late on Sunday was a personal defeat for Zardari, outside his offices it was viewed as a step towards stronger democracy in Pakistan.
The US embassy in Islamabad hailed the move as a “substantial step towards national reconciliation”, while Richard Holbrooke, US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, praised Zardari for a “statesmanlike act” he hoped would “help defuse a dangerous confrontation”.
Indeed, the threat of a paralysis of Pakistan’s federal capital finally forced Zardari to pull back from a clash with the legal establishment.
Until Sunday morning the president had refused to allow Chaudhry’s return, fearing the activist chief justice might pursue corruption charges against him.
The capitulation prompted celebrations across the country. Wellwishers lined up outside Chaudhry’s residence in Islamabad, where he offered predawn thanksgiving prayers.
Athar Minallah, a leading lawyer and Chaudhry’s de facto spokesman, said: “Pakistan has finally recognised the importance of institutions. Iftikhar Chaudhry and his movement was in fact about the independence of important institutions. That principle has finally won.”
The victory has come at a price. Zardari’s retreat has left the civilian government – only a few months old – bruised and weakened.
Zardari was leant upon by the international community, led by the US and the UK, and the army.
Pakistan’s relations with Washington can be difficult – Holbrooke has clashed with Islamabad over a deal with militants in the Swat valley. But the US views Pakistan as a strategic priority and weekend phone calls by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to its political leaders, together with the promise of increased civilian aid, added to the pressure.
The crucial element in the hours before the reinstatement was the intervention of Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the chief of army staff. Rather than threatening a return to military rule, the general helped broker a truce to keep parliamentary democracy alive.
One minister said: “He basically gave assurances to the president, the prime minister and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif that the army will make certain everyone will abide by the commitments. Given the trust deficit between the government and the opposition, the army and Gen Kiyani are the essential guarantors.”
Under the terms agreed, Sharif has been promised the opportunity to regain control of the populous Punjab province in spite of a supreme court ruling barring him from elected office.
Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and an arch rival of Zardari, had aligned his party’s protest in Lahore with that of the lawyers to achieve maximum impact.
Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a political commentator, said: “Maybe a big crisis has been averted for the time being, but at what cost? The army’s intervention as the problem solver has also demonstrated that politicians still do not have the capacity to resolve differences on their own. If the army now has a spot on the decision-making table, is that necessarily cause for celebration?” – (Financial Times service)