|
By Zahid Abdullah IN the last 60 years, we have tried to run the affairs of the country through the power that flows from the barrel of the gun as well as the one that flows from the ballot box. In both cases, we have failed miserably as the missing link has been the rule of law.
If war is too serious a business to be left to the generals, running the country cannot at all be left to the politicians alone. As politicians have yet another opportunity to govern the country, it is about time they get certain facts straight about democracy.
This is all the more necessary given the statements emanating from the likes of Mr Asif Ali Zardari on the lawyers’ movement and the retaining of Malik Qayyum as attorney general which we will address later. Elections that elevate politicians to the status of MPAs and MNAs, and consequently to public offices, are just one component of the democratic process. The latter is a continuous process and runs through the tenure of parliament and beyond. To this democratic process belong not only politicians and political parties but also lawyers, students, teachers, traders, doctors, disabled people (yes, of course), journalists and all those associations, organisations and bodies through which they are represented.
The function of political parties is to make an aggregate of the total demands raised in society and have them fulfilled when in power. The function of the media and other civil society organisations is to ensure the rule of law by providing checks and balances to the power wielded by the politicians. Can politicians be the harbingers of that dawn where the rule of law would hold sway in the country?
Never in our entire history had we been so close to achieving the elusive dream of establishing the rule of law in the country as when Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said ‘no’ and triggered the lawyers’ movement. For the first time there was demand for the rule of law from outside the power quarters. For it to be potent and effective, the demand had to come from a well-organised and democratic interest group and it did.
The lawyers’ movement that took the power quarters by storm was able to sustain itself over a longer period because their bar councils are democratic and hold elections regularly.
As pointed out earlier, political parties make an aggregate of the total number of demands in society and take up only those which reflect their manifestoes or suit their needs. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable as to why some of the political parties took up the cause of the lawyers’ movement and others were ambivalent in their stand on this issue.
However, what is not understandable is the way political parties that took, at best, an ambivalent stand on the issue of restoring the deposed judges are now trying to monopolise the whole democratic process.
This tendency stems from the limited understanding of democracy which pre-supposes election results as the final outcome of the democratic process. Political leaders that preclude the role of interest groups in the democratic process need to have themselves enrolled in a crash course on participatory democracy. Basking in glory which has its roots in power that comes by winning the elections, they call into question the legitimacy of the lawyers’ demand by pointing out that they called for the boycott of polls.
Political parties participated in these elections not because of what happens when they take part in elections that are likely to be rigged but because of what happens when they do not take part in elections at all — the case in point being the 1985 general elections and the PPP’s decision not to take part in them.
The lawyers were perfectly justified in assuming that their interests would not be protected if the elections were rigged. Furthermore, Mr Farooq Naek, minister for law, justice and human rights, seems totally oblivious to the norms of participatory democracy when he says that Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari would take the final decision on the draft resolution and that no one could ‘dictate’ to them. It is not a question of dictation. As an interest group, the lawyers’ movement has every right to ensure that its struggle is not sacrificed at the altar of political convenience.
Similarly, lawyers elected Mr Qayyum as their president when the majority of them thought he was better suited to serve their interests as lawyers. He was appointed attorney general by those who thought he could serve their interests best and political leaders have allowed him to continue holding his post as their interests coincide with those who appointed him in the first place. Why blame the lawyers when it is all about the convergence of interests?
We are in the process of graduating from a ‘controlled’ democracy to a real one. Real democracy is participatory in nature and politicians will have to learn to co-exist with pressure/interest groups. No matter what spin legal eagles and politicians may give to the issue of restoration of the deposed judges, the law is all about common sense that found majestic manifestation on Feb 18.
The media, the lawyers’ movement and other civil society organisations, as interest groups of a participatory democracy, will continue their struggle to ensure the rule of law in the intervening period between Feb 18 and the next general elections.
The writer is a rights activist based in Islamabad.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
RSS