third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
We hear references to an ongoing conflict between the organs of state. These organs may be identified as the presidency, prime ministers office, legislature, judiciary, armed forces, and the bureaucracy. The parliament as an entity does not take any action; it is moved by the ruling party and notables in the opposition. The bureaucracy is coterminous with organised civil society and state; they cannot function without it, which makes it indispensable. This characteristic gives it an enormous amount of power. It breeds among the other centres of power a certain amount of envy and resentment; however, these feelings on their part do not hurt the bureaucracy. It is then not surprising that there is no visible conflict between the bureaucracy and the other organs of state.
In the British tradition, civil servants were politically unaligned. Each of them might have his own affiliations; he gave his political superiors the best advice and assistance of which he was capable. His own advancement did not depend upon the predilections of his political superiors. The British rulers imparted the same practice to the Indian Civil Service. Governments in Pakistan inherited it upon independence but did not sustain it. Politicians came to have a lot of say in the postings, transfers, and promotions of the middle level and higher civil servants. Officials in turn developed loyalties to politicians whose antecedents, social background, and agendas were congenial to them. It would then be safe to say that civil servants in Pakistan, especially those at the higher levels, have been politicised. They cannot then be relied upon to preserve and advance the public interest any more than politicians can.
The generals in Pakistan believe that they have a better understanding of the national interest and the means of preserving it than do the civilians. They hold this view with regard to both foreign and domestic affairs. Since they do not have much to do by way of safeguarding the countrys borders, they have taken upon themselves to manage some of the critical dimensions of its governance. They direct its relations with the United States, India, Russia, and Afghanistan. One of the armys units, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has been an exceedingly active agent in domestic politics. It has made and broken alliances between political parties, given them money, and funded the election campaigns of selected politicians. This role has diminished lately but we cannot be sure that it has stopped altogether. The ISI tells the prime minister as much as it deems fit but headed by a serving lieutenant general, its operational head is the army chief to whom it reports more fully. Given its operational style there is bound to be some tension in its relations with the civilian government.
The executives transactions with other agencies are reflected in parliaments business. The executive and the higher judiciary have not seen eye to eye on numerous occasions during the last four years. Guided by President Asif Ali Zardari, the government evaded or ignored its directives in many cases. A few months ago, the court sentenced Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to a brief imprisonment (till the rising of the court) for refusing to obey its order concerning a letter that was to be written to the Swiss authorities.
An essentially barren debate has been going on in the country concerning the locus of supremacy. One school of thought maintains that parliament is supreme in that it makes laws, and that it can make or amend the constitution. Others argue that while parliament is competent to make laws, the Supreme Court may annul any of them that it finds to be repugnant to the constitution. The court has invalidated a number of the governments actions on this ground. It is now requiring Raja Pervez Ashraf, Mr Gilanis successor, to write the letter to the Swiss authorities, which the former had declined to do. Reports indicate that Raja Sahib will do the same and the likelihood then is that he too will be deemed to have committed contempt of court and deserving to be removed.
The constitution requires all concerned parties to obey the Supreme Court. The tussle between the court and the executive described above has become a volatile political issue, both sides of which deserve attention. The court is authorised to take suo motu notice of wrongdoings on the part of government agencies and officials and it has done so frequently. This has been viewed in certain quarters as an undue intervention in the executives domain. The holders of this view regard the courts propensity in this regard as judicial activism, which they think should be avoided. They maintain that it should act only when an aggrieved party brings a complaint before it. There is something to be said for this point of view.
The other side if this coin should also be examined. The constitution does not allow the president any powers or functions with regard to the governments operations. It names the prime minister as chief executive. Yet President Zardari operates as the governments effective head and as such, he exercises an enormous amount of power. He derives this role from his position as the co-chairperson of the PPP, a position that gives him virtual control over its nominees in parliament.
It had to be upon President Zardaris behest that parliament passed a law that would allow him and several of his higher-ranking officials to criticise the court and its judgements without inviting penalties. As generally expected, the court struck down this law. Mr Zardari and his party leaders have angrily announced that they will not take it lying down; they will defy it and organise a mass movement to resist it. These plans will most likely get nowhere. The Supreme Court, and particularly, Mr Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, command wide-ranging support among lawyers, media, organs of civil society, and the public at large. In their confrontation with the court, the PPP stands alone, with a sprinkling of prominent lawyers. Nevertheless, they are not willing to surrender. It follows that a high degree of tension between two organs of state has come to haunt us and it shows no signs of abating. And if the status quo is maintained, the country could be pushed into a state of civil strife.
We hear references to an ongoing conflict between the organs of state. These organs may be identified as the presidency, prime ministers office, legislature, judiciary, armed forces, and the bureaucracy. The parliament as an entity does not take any action; it is moved by the ruling party and notables in the opposition. The bureaucracy is coterminous with organised civil society and state; they cannot function without it, which makes it indispensable. This characteristic gives it an enormous amount of power. It breeds among the other centres of power a certain amount of envy and resentment; however, these feelings on their part do not hurt the bureaucracy. It is then not surprising that there is no visible conflict between the bureaucracy and the other organs of state.
In the British tradition, civil servants were politically unaligned. Each of them might have his own affiliations; he gave his political superiors the best advice and assistance of which he was capable. His own advancement did not depend upon the predilections of his political superiors. The British rulers imparted the same practice to the Indian Civil Service. Governments in Pakistan inherited it upon independence but did not sustain it. Politicians came to have a lot of say in the postings, transfers, and promotions of the middle level and higher civil servants. Officials in turn developed loyalties to politicians whose antecedents, social background, and agendas were congenial to them. It would then be safe to say that civil servants in Pakistan, especially those at the higher levels, have been politicised. They cannot then be relied upon to preserve and advance the public interest any more than politicians can.
The generals in Pakistan believe that they have a better understanding of the national interest and the means of preserving it than do the civilians. They hold this view with regard to both foreign and domestic affairs. Since they do not have much to do by way of safeguarding the countrys borders, they have taken upon themselves to manage some of the critical dimensions of its governance. They direct its relations with the United States, India, Russia, and Afghanistan. One of the armys units, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has been an exceedingly active agent in domestic politics. It has made and broken alliances between political parties, given them money, and funded the election campaigns of selected politicians. This role has diminished lately but we cannot be sure that it has stopped altogether. The ISI tells the prime minister as much as it deems fit but headed by a serving lieutenant general, its operational head is the army chief to whom it reports more fully. Given its operational style there is bound to be some tension in its relations with the civilian government.
The executives transactions with other agencies are reflected in parliaments business. The executive and the higher judiciary have not seen eye to eye on numerous occasions during the last four years. Guided by President Asif Ali Zardari, the government evaded or ignored its directives in many cases. A few months ago, the court sentenced Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to a brief imprisonment (till the rising of the court) for refusing to obey its order concerning a letter that was to be written to the Swiss authorities.
An essentially barren debate has been going on in the country concerning the locus of supremacy. One school of thought maintains that parliament is supreme in that it makes laws, and that it can make or amend the constitution. Others argue that while parliament is competent to make laws, the Supreme Court may annul any of them that it finds to be repugnant to the constitution. The court has invalidated a number of the governments actions on this ground. It is now requiring Raja Pervez Ashraf, Mr Gilanis successor, to write the letter to the Swiss authorities, which the former had declined to do. Reports indicate that Raja Sahib will do the same and the likelihood then is that he too will be deemed to have committed contempt of court and deserving to be removed.
The constitution requires all concerned parties to obey the Supreme Court. The tussle between the court and the executive described above has become a volatile political issue, both sides of which deserve attention. The court is authorised to take suo motu notice of wrongdoings on the part of government agencies and officials and it has done so frequently. This has been viewed in certain quarters as an undue intervention in the executives domain. The holders of this view regard the courts propensity in this regard as judicial activism, which they think should be avoided. They maintain that it should act only when an aggrieved party brings a complaint before it. There is something to be said for this point of view.
The other side if this coin should also be examined. The constitution does not allow the president any powers or functions with regard to the governments operations. It names the prime minister as chief executive. Yet President Zardari operates as the governments effective head and as such, he exercises an enormous amount of power. He derives this role from his position as the co-chairperson of the PPP, a position that gives him virtual control over its nominees in parliament.
It had to be upon President Zardaris behest that parliament passed a law that would allow him and several of his higher-ranking officials to criticise the court and its judgements without inviting penalties. As generally expected, the court struck down this law. Mr Zardari and his party leaders have angrily announced that they will not take it lying down; they will defy it and organise a mass movement to resist it. These plans will most likely get nowhere. The Supreme Court, and particularly, Mr Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, command wide-ranging support among lawyers, media, organs of civil society, and the public at large. In their confrontation with the court, the PPP stands alone, with a sprinkling of prominent lawyers. Nevertheless, they are not willing to surrender. It follows that a high degree of tension between two organs of state has come to haunt us and it shows no signs of abating. And if the status quo is maintained, the country could be pushed into a state of civil strife.
