By Supna Zaidi
Many heralded last week's Pakistani lawyers' "long march" as a significant win for democracy in the country. The march forced the re-instatement of Judge Iftikhar Chaudhry after his removal as the country's chief justice on March 9, 2007 by then President Pervez Musharraf. At that time, Musharraf imposed emergency rule, suspended the Constitution and fired numerous judges besides Chaudhry on the heels of having his authority challenged in the courts. Chaudhry was also removed for his constant efforts to review human rights cases in the highest court, which Musharraf found unduly embarrassed Pakistan's image in the international arena.
Chief Justice Chaudhry did not "rock the boat" on his way to the highest judicial seat in Pakistan. Chaudhry voted with the majority on four cases between 2000 and 2005 which "validated the military takeover by Gen Musharraf, his referendum, his legal framework order (LFO) and the 17th constitutional amendment that gave the president additional powers and allowed him to continue as the army chief". Only after becoming chief justice, did Chaudhry feel comfortable enough to push for greater democracy and transparency in the country. He established a separate human rights unit at the court to focus on honor crimes, reversed a major privatization deal previously approved by former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, and forced the country's intelligence agencies to admit they held dozens of people in secret custody.
Now, with the newly proposed Nizam-i-Adl (Sharia) Regulation 2009 in Swat, Chaudhry will walk into a court that will also face the war on terror directly. The regular courts stopped functioning in the district on March 17, 2009, a day after Islamist Maulana Sufi Muhammad stated that these courts and the practice of lawyers was against Sharia. He ordered the secular courts to close down and stated that its lawyers need not appear before Swat's Islamic courts anymore. Clearly, the Islamists are in charge post truce, with no say by Pakistan's central government. But will Chaudhry's judiciary go along with it as well?
The draft of the Sharia Regulation provides a schedule, listing 91 laws that are already in force. But section 3 (2) makes it clear that all laws that are not in conformity with the injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah will 'cease to have effect in the said area'. This repugnancy clause will negate any secular decisions that Chaudhry's court makes in the region, especially his human rights court, much lauded by human rights activists in the country and abroad. Moreover, within the world of Islamic law, whose interpretation will be applied? The secular ANP party in Swat or the latter who have already burned down secular girls schools, and deemed music and movies a sin in their efforts to bring order into the region?
Many analysts point to the fact that Swat is unique and activity there may not necessarily translate into further Islamist wins in Pakistan "proper." Swat, is after all, a part of the provincially autonomous tribal areas (PATA), which resemble the federally autonomous tribal areas in Pakistan's northwest frontier province in that they were never under direct Pakistani jurisdiction. It has only been because of the American "war on terror" that Pakistan is being pressured to bring these regions in line or have the job done for them by the U.S.
Yet, appeasement in Swat has strengthened Islamist morale in Pakistan. Intelligence agencies warned that Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud has dispatched 20 foreign militants, mostly Uzbeks, to carry out terror strikes in major cities in Pakistan on March 24, 2009. And to make matters worse, this week, David Kilcullen, an advisor to CENTCOM commander Gen. David H. Petraeus, stated, 'Were now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state."
The Pakistani civilian government does not rule the country. The military, police and intelligence services are "essentially" a rogue state within a state and some western analysts fear the worst, stating, "the collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover-that would dwarf everything we've seen in the war on terror today."
The success of the lawyers' "long march" does not signify the end of a chapter, but the beginning of an uphill struggle in Pakistan. The civilian government is either corrupt or helpless in governing the state. The intelligence and military serve their own egos fomenting Islamism to fight for a sphere of influence in Afghanistan or land in Kashmir against India, leaving only the judiciary to fight for Pakistan. Chaudhry's re-instatement will make him a target like no other. If he truly pushes for transparency, human rights, and the secular rule of law he will need more than lawyer's marching in the next year.
The judiciary will need an arm to enforce the highest court of Pakistan's decisions. The Pakistani Parliament must get behind Chaudhry, despite the corrupt backgrounds of its members and less than glowing history regarding human rights, transparency and the defense of Pakistan's Constitution.
But it is possible, if Pakistani citizens and the international community realize that the first partner in the war on terror is the judiciary in Pakistan, not the military. Focusing on military partnerships alone offers no exit strategy. But, demanding that the military get behind Chaudhry might prove otherwise. Pakistan cannot exist without international aid from the IMF and specific loans from countries like the US. This is our bargaining chip to support Chaudhry if we want real democracy in Pakistan.
(Supna Zaidi is editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today and assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at zaidi@meforum.org.)
Many heralded last week's Pakistani lawyers' "long march" as a significant win for democracy in the country. The march forced the re-instatement of Judge Iftikhar Chaudhry after his removal as the country's chief justice on March 9, 2007 by then President Pervez Musharraf. At that time, Musharraf imposed emergency rule, suspended the Constitution and fired numerous judges besides Chaudhry on the heels of having his authority challenged in the courts. Chaudhry was also removed for his constant efforts to review human rights cases in the highest court, which Musharraf found unduly embarrassed Pakistan's image in the international arena.
Chief Justice Chaudhry did not "rock the boat" on his way to the highest judicial seat in Pakistan. Chaudhry voted with the majority on four cases between 2000 and 2005 which "validated the military takeover by Gen Musharraf, his referendum, his legal framework order (LFO) and the 17th constitutional amendment that gave the president additional powers and allowed him to continue as the army chief". Only after becoming chief justice, did Chaudhry feel comfortable enough to push for greater democracy and transparency in the country. He established a separate human rights unit at the court to focus on honor crimes, reversed a major privatization deal previously approved by former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, and forced the country's intelligence agencies to admit they held dozens of people in secret custody.
Now, with the newly proposed Nizam-i-Adl (Sharia) Regulation 2009 in Swat, Chaudhry will walk into a court that will also face the war on terror directly. The regular courts stopped functioning in the district on March 17, 2009, a day after Islamist Maulana Sufi Muhammad stated that these courts and the practice of lawyers was against Sharia. He ordered the secular courts to close down and stated that its lawyers need not appear before Swat's Islamic courts anymore. Clearly, the Islamists are in charge post truce, with no say by Pakistan's central government. But will Chaudhry's judiciary go along with it as well?
The draft of the Sharia Regulation provides a schedule, listing 91 laws that are already in force. But section 3 (2) makes it clear that all laws that are not in conformity with the injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah will 'cease to have effect in the said area'. This repugnancy clause will negate any secular decisions that Chaudhry's court makes in the region, especially his human rights court, much lauded by human rights activists in the country and abroad. Moreover, within the world of Islamic law, whose interpretation will be applied? The secular ANP party in Swat or the latter who have already burned down secular girls schools, and deemed music and movies a sin in their efforts to bring order into the region?
Many analysts point to the fact that Swat is unique and activity there may not necessarily translate into further Islamist wins in Pakistan "proper." Swat, is after all, a part of the provincially autonomous tribal areas (PATA), which resemble the federally autonomous tribal areas in Pakistan's northwest frontier province in that they were never under direct Pakistani jurisdiction. It has only been because of the American "war on terror" that Pakistan is being pressured to bring these regions in line or have the job done for them by the U.S.
Yet, appeasement in Swat has strengthened Islamist morale in Pakistan. Intelligence agencies warned that Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud has dispatched 20 foreign militants, mostly Uzbeks, to carry out terror strikes in major cities in Pakistan on March 24, 2009. And to make matters worse, this week, David Kilcullen, an advisor to CENTCOM commander Gen. David H. Petraeus, stated, 'Were now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state."
The Pakistani civilian government does not rule the country. The military, police and intelligence services are "essentially" a rogue state within a state and some western analysts fear the worst, stating, "the collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover-that would dwarf everything we've seen in the war on terror today."
The success of the lawyers' "long march" does not signify the end of a chapter, but the beginning of an uphill struggle in Pakistan. The civilian government is either corrupt or helpless in governing the state. The intelligence and military serve their own egos fomenting Islamism to fight for a sphere of influence in Afghanistan or land in Kashmir against India, leaving only the judiciary to fight for Pakistan. Chaudhry's re-instatement will make him a target like no other. If he truly pushes for transparency, human rights, and the secular rule of law he will need more than lawyer's marching in the next year.
The judiciary will need an arm to enforce the highest court of Pakistan's decisions. The Pakistani Parliament must get behind Chaudhry, despite the corrupt backgrounds of its members and less than glowing history regarding human rights, transparency and the defense of Pakistan's Constitution.
But it is possible, if Pakistani citizens and the international community realize that the first partner in the war on terror is the judiciary in Pakistan, not the military. Focusing on military partnerships alone offers no exit strategy. But, demanding that the military get behind Chaudhry might prove otherwise. Pakistan cannot exist without international aid from the IMF and specific loans from countries like the US. This is our bargaining chip to support Chaudhry if we want real democracy in Pakistan.
(Supna Zaidi is editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today and assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at zaidi@meforum.org.)
Source: Muslim World Today
Posts
