|
|
|
Articles |
Should the Parliament appoint
senior judges?
BY : A B SHAHID
|
ARTICLE (March 05 2010): After months of haggling, the Parliamentary
Committee on Constitutional Reforms finalised its draft
on the proposed Judicial Commission to appoint senior judges. To some, even
this isn't enough; a Karachi-based English
newspaper equates the move with saying "good-bye" to the relevant provisions
of the Charter of Democracy (CoD) because the
Commission doesn't give Parliament the clout promised by the CoD.
Indeed, in a democratic dispensation - least bad system of governance - the
Parliament decides all issues of state governance
but should dispensation of justice form a part of governance, or an
independent check thereon? Appointing senior judges with
parliamentary consent is flawed because it gives rise to a conflict of
interest. Besides, the record of democratic regimes
doesn't promise prudent exercise of this solemn authority.
All elected governments were dissolved on charges of corruption and
political intolerance because they used power as the
raison deter for blatant unilateralism that rapidly eroded their popularity.
With a corrupt feudal class, high illiteracy
level and voter's ignorance about the power of the vote, Pakistan remains
unfit for governance via a set-up wherein power
revolves largely within a close circle of the powerful and the corrupt.
Despite its chequered record, the sitting judiciary had expressed a resolve
to check military take-overs and partisan
parliamentary practices by providing a check on state governance. For
committing this error, the judiciary is being made
subservient to the whims of a parliament that has largely failed in
equitable legislation and checking corruption, and also
finds even a Bachelor's Degree unnecessary for the MPs. Yet, it wants to
appoint senior judges.
This track record doesn't justify parliamentary approval of the senior
judges; in fact, it is bound to create doubts about
the independence of the judiciary. That democracy is a deceptive system of
governance has been proved by mismanagement of the
world's great democracies including Britain that claims to have the 'mother'
of all parliaments.
By 1976, things became so bad that martial law became imminent. The army
spearheaded by MI5 offered premier Harold Wilson two
choices; resign or get ready for castigation. Wilson resigned. The reward:
investigation into his role in the unexplained
death of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell and Wilson's Soviet connections,
were hushed up, he was knighted, and made a life
member of the House of Lords - all under a democratic dispensation.
The imbalance in the social and economic systems created by Thatcherite
response to Labour's mismanagement of the state
caused lasting damage. Living in the UK during 1976-78, and again during
1985-88, I saw the worst of the mismanagement of the
state by a Labour government and the flawed undoing thereof by the
Conservatives. John Major's dicey role in the Bosnian
tragedy was another dark chapter in the British history.
Recently, Britons were duped by the famous 'dodgy dossier' which, quite
unashamedly, was sanctified by premier Tony Blair; he
and his press aide Alistair Campbell now represent what self-respecting
Britons call the black sheep. As time passes, the on
-going investigation into Britain's participation in the US invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq will reveal a lot about the
integrity of this twice-elected British Premier.
According to "Sleeping with the Devil", a book by an ex-CIA official Robert
Baer, many US politicians remain on the payroll
of a Middle Eastern state, implying thereby that democracy in the US also
elevates to power foreign agents. In 2001, the
President's office remained in a state of suspension for 16 days because the
presidential election was rigged with the help
of a corrupt administration and a subservient judiciary.
That rigged election installed George Bush in the White House and his
cabinet comprised self-acclaimed religious
fundamentalists who were also notorious for corruption, while serving in the
corporate sector. The deeds of the past US
regimes are so culpable that the US got the mandate of the International
Criminal Court amended whereby crimes of the past US
regimes would not be called into question.
India - world's biggest democracy - is no better. In not too distant past,
the ruling party appointed 72 ministers in the
Uttar Paradesh assembly of 140 to prevent its own downfall. The mess in
Bihar assembly was a monumental success in rendering
democracy susceptible to endless corruption. Finally, the ethnic rage that
characterises India's politics is also the gift of
democracy being used to polarise the society racially.
Japan, another great democracy, enjoys the distinction of electing an
amazing number of prime ministers with shady
backgrounds, many were later sacked on bribery charges. In Europe, the
legacy left behind by Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher
and Helmut Kohl was a disaster. The treatment the Western democracies meted
out to Z.A. Bhutto, Lumumba, Mandela, Mossadegh,
Nkrumah, Nasser, Salvador Allende, Shah Faisal and Soekarno is no secret.
Nor is the history of those countries any secret where corrupt regimes were
installed, supported, and then destroyed when
they over-did what their masters in the Western democracies asked them to
do. Remember the likes of the Bothas, Generals
Franco, Noriega, Pinoche, Suharto, and Zia, and Mobutu, Marcos, Saddam, and
Shah of Iran?
Businesses now finance political campaigns and end up owning governments
that serve their interests at the expense of the
electorate. Greed injected into the system by powerful business lobbies
makes trade policies self-serving; then they are
imposed on the world via WTO. The irony is that, in the process, the West
itself has become their target. Consequently,
poverty has become the number one problem globally.
Not surprisingly, therefore, instead of offering 'development' loans, the WB
now extends loans for alleviating poverty. This
explains why the terrorism (rooted in deprivation and denial) is the biggest
problem we face. What applies here is the
principle that applies to computers - garbage in, garbage out. Greed and
injustice, cleverly shrouded in a smokescreen of
propaganda about 'freeing' the markets caused this chaos, all courtesy
democracy.
The mess created by the Western democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is a
monument to how elected leaders arrogate to
themselves the authority to trample both domestic and international law, and
lie to their people to treacherously obtain a
mandate for committing horrible crimes against humanity. Given this
background, should parliamentarians have the right to
appoint the judiciary - the only institution that can sustain a semblance of
fairness and equality?
The authority to appoint senior judiciary calls for pertinent, immaculate,
and unbiased credentials. How many Pakistani
politicians can credibly claim having all these credentials? Aren't
Pakistan's political parties known for virtually
worshipping their leaders and party interests rather than fairness, justice,
and equality? Will the judges they appoint be
blessed with these qualities? At best, the answer to all these questions is
"I am not sure."
Copyright Business Recorder, 2010
|
|
Back to News Index |
|
