A coup is still a coup regardless of who removes a duly elected government by unconstitutional means. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's government did not lose a vote of confidence in parliament, nor was he impeached. He has been overthrown by three unelected and unaccountable judges of Pakistan Supreme Court.
The action of the three-member bench of the Supreme Court is being seen as a power play to assert its view that it is better suited to represent the people of Pakistan than those they have chosen to elect themselves.
There is no question that, in their genuine zeal to tame widespread government corruption, Pakistan's top judges have run amok by usurping powers for themselves that were never intended for them by the framers of the constitution. It's clearly a case of ends justifying the means. The timing of the judgment also raises questions as it comes just days after billionaire businessman Malik Riaz Husain accused the Chief Justice’s son of accepting millions in bribes to swing cases. There are also significant issues of precedent. The judgement cites, for instance, two Indian court cases. Both the Rajendra Singh Rana vs Swami Prasad Maurya case and the Jagjit Singh vs State of Haryana case deal with the disqualification of members of State Assemblies on charges of defection which cannot serve as precedent for removing a Prime Minister or even a Chief Minister.
So why is it that the majority of the people appear to be welcoming it? Is this situation any different than the welcome extended to military coup leaders who overthrew incompetent and corrupt civilian governments in the past?
The main difference between this judicial coup and the past military coups is that this coup will not result in any real progress in improving governance and solving serious problems of energy, economy and security. President Zardari will still be in change, and he will likely appoint another prime minister of his party and the business will continue as usual.
If it were a military coup led by an Army general, the history tells us that there would be serious and immediate attention paid to improving governance, resuscitating the economy and resolving the worst ever energy and internal security crises in Pakistan's history. The military governments have delivered better governance and higher economic growth by ending the corrupt system of political patronage that is central to civilian rule, and by putting non-political technocrats in charge of the most important ministries. Here's how eminent Pakistani economist late Dr. Mahbub ul Haq described the difference between political and military governments in a 1988 interview:
"Growth in Pakistan has never translated into budgetary security because of the way our political system works. We could be collecting twice as much in revenue - even India collects 50% more than we do - and spending the money on infrastructure and education. But agriculture in Pakistan pays no tax because the landed gentry controls politics and therefore has a grip on every government. Businessman are given state loans and then allowed to default on them in return for favors to politicians and parties. Politicians protect corrupt officials so they can both share the proceeds.
And every time a new political government comes in they have to distribute huge amounts of state money and jobs as rewards to politicians who have supported them, and short term populist measures to try to convince the people that their election promises meant something, which leaves nothing for long-term development. As far as development is concerned, our system has all the worst features of oligarchy and democracy put together.
That is why only technocratic, non-political governments in Pakistan have ever been able to increase revenues. But they can not stay in power for long because they have no political support...For the same reason we have not been able to deregulate the economy as much as I wanted, despite seven years of trying, because the politicians and officials both like the system Bhutto (Late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) put in place. It suits them both very well, because it gave them lots of lucrative state-sponsored jobs in industry and banking to take for themselves or distribute to their relatives and supporters."
As a result of their different management style, the military governments have a history of delivering significantly higher economic growth than the civilians who follow them. The highest economic growth in Pakistan has occurred under former Presidents Ziaul Haq, Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf, in that order. The next two are somewhat surprising: Benazir Bhutto comes in at fourth place and her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is not far behind. Nawaz Sharif comes in at seventh place, while Zardari is in last place among ten rulers.
During the most recent military government led by President Musharraf from 1999-2008, Pakistan made strides beyond higher GDP growth. There was significant social development as well. Based on volumes of recently released reports and data on job creation, education, middle class size, public hygiene, poverty and hunger over the last decade, Pakistan created more jobs, graduated more people from schools and colleges, built a larger middle class and lifted more people out of poverty as percentage of its population than India in the last decade. And Pakistan did so in spite of the huge challenges posed by the war in Afghanistan and a very violent insurgency at home.
Is there a democracy discount for economic and social development that Pakistanis have to live with just to have more freedom and rights? If so, how much of a discount are they willing to accept? Is it 20% or 50% of the average growth rates delivered by military rule? Or do they have to accept any discount at all? Is it possible for Pakistani politicians to learn any lessons from Turkey's leaders Erdogan and Gul who have demonstrated significant economic bonus relative to their predecessor military governments? Can Pakistani politicians deliver like their Turkish counterparts have to win the respect and support of the electorate? Only time will tell.
Haq's Musings: Welcome Judicial Coup in Islamabad?
The action of the three-member bench of the Supreme Court is being seen as a power play to assert its view that it is better suited to represent the people of Pakistan than those they have chosen to elect themselves.
There is no question that, in their genuine zeal to tame widespread government corruption, Pakistan's top judges have run amok by usurping powers for themselves that were never intended for them by the framers of the constitution. It's clearly a case of ends justifying the means. The timing of the judgment also raises questions as it comes just days after billionaire businessman Malik Riaz Husain accused the Chief Justice’s son of accepting millions in bribes to swing cases. There are also significant issues of precedent. The judgement cites, for instance, two Indian court cases. Both the Rajendra Singh Rana vs Swami Prasad Maurya case and the Jagjit Singh vs State of Haryana case deal with the disqualification of members of State Assemblies on charges of defection which cannot serve as precedent for removing a Prime Minister or even a Chief Minister.
So why is it that the majority of the people appear to be welcoming it? Is this situation any different than the welcome extended to military coup leaders who overthrew incompetent and corrupt civilian governments in the past?
The main difference between this judicial coup and the past military coups is that this coup will not result in any real progress in improving governance and solving serious problems of energy, economy and security. President Zardari will still be in change, and he will likely appoint another prime minister of his party and the business will continue as usual.
If it were a military coup led by an Army general, the history tells us that there would be serious and immediate attention paid to improving governance, resuscitating the economy and resolving the worst ever energy and internal security crises in Pakistan's history. The military governments have delivered better governance and higher economic growth by ending the corrupt system of political patronage that is central to civilian rule, and by putting non-political technocrats in charge of the most important ministries. Here's how eminent Pakistani economist late Dr. Mahbub ul Haq described the difference between political and military governments in a 1988 interview:
"Growth in Pakistan has never translated into budgetary security because of the way our political system works. We could be collecting twice as much in revenue - even India collects 50% more than we do - and spending the money on infrastructure and education. But agriculture in Pakistan pays no tax because the landed gentry controls politics and therefore has a grip on every government. Businessman are given state loans and then allowed to default on them in return for favors to politicians and parties. Politicians protect corrupt officials so they can both share the proceeds.
And every time a new political government comes in they have to distribute huge amounts of state money and jobs as rewards to politicians who have supported them, and short term populist measures to try to convince the people that their election promises meant something, which leaves nothing for long-term development. As far as development is concerned, our system has all the worst features of oligarchy and democracy put together.
That is why only technocratic, non-political governments in Pakistan have ever been able to increase revenues. But they can not stay in power for long because they have no political support...For the same reason we have not been able to deregulate the economy as much as I wanted, despite seven years of trying, because the politicians and officials both like the system Bhutto (Late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) put in place. It suits them both very well, because it gave them lots of lucrative state-sponsored jobs in industry and banking to take for themselves or distribute to their relatives and supporters."
As a result of their different management style, the military governments have a history of delivering significantly higher economic growth than the civilians who follow them. The highest economic growth in Pakistan has occurred under former Presidents Ziaul Haq, Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf, in that order. The next two are somewhat surprising: Benazir Bhutto comes in at fourth place and her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is not far behind. Nawaz Sharif comes in at seventh place, while Zardari is in last place among ten rulers.
During the most recent military government led by President Musharraf from 1999-2008, Pakistan made strides beyond higher GDP growth. There was significant social development as well. Based on volumes of recently released reports and data on job creation, education, middle class size, public hygiene, poverty and hunger over the last decade, Pakistan created more jobs, graduated more people from schools and colleges, built a larger middle class and lifted more people out of poverty as percentage of its population than India in the last decade. And Pakistan did so in spite of the huge challenges posed by the war in Afghanistan and a very violent insurgency at home.
Is there a democracy discount for economic and social development that Pakistanis have to live with just to have more freedom and rights? If so, how much of a discount are they willing to accept? Is it 20% or 50% of the average growth rates delivered by military rule? Or do they have to accept any discount at all? Is it possible for Pakistani politicians to learn any lessons from Turkey's leaders Erdogan and Gul who have demonstrated significant economic bonus relative to their predecessor military governments? Can Pakistani politicians deliver like their Turkish counterparts have to win the respect and support of the electorate? Only time will tell.
Haq's Musings: Welcome Judicial Coup in Islamabad?
