Lawyers’ Movement: A Political Beast
Dawn.com’s Yousuf Nasim wrangles with the politics of the lawyers’ movement.
One of the gravest errors made by commentators when discussing the lawyers’ movement is to describe it as an apolitical civil movement. This is a fiction perpetuated by the media, and to some extent politicians. Both have a similar motivation for their abridgement of the facts. It is, after all, easier to sell a story when it has a clearly defined plot, a hero and a villain. In fact, what we today refer to as the lawyers’ movement is clearly a political beast. The movement organises marches and stages rallies. It lobbies for public support and has a clear policy statement. It is backed by a loose alliance of political parties.
This is not to say, however, that the inherently political nature of the movement is a bad thing. Rather, it is the only correct route to take. Despite the speeches of Chaudhry Iftikhar, it must be understood that within a parliamentary system, the only meaningful vehicle for change is the parliament itself and not the judiciary (or for that matter the executive). The legal system derives its moral authority through the fact that the laws it applies are prescribed by the same people who it then applies them to. Morality within law stems not from the crusading zeal of independent judges – who are, at the end of the day, appointed officials – but rather through the implementation of a representative rule-based system. In this, the lawyers’ movement is quite correct in lobbying parliament for fundamental changes within Pakistan’s constitution and legislation.
Where the lawyers’ movement errs is not in its politicization of the issues, but rather in its attempt to depoliticize the issue and present itself as a neutral party. In his article ‘A game with no rules‘, Mr Cyril Almeida captures the very crux of the problem: “a rules-bound game can only work if someone other than the players arbitrates…. A judiciary isn’t the vehicle for change, it’s only the referee,” he quite correctly goes on to say.
Though many of the demands made by the lawyers’ movement are correct and justifiable, their desire to see the former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry reinstated is woefully misguided. The authority of the judiciary is derived from its impartiality. Furthermore, as correctly argued by the British House of Lords in the case of R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2), it is not actual bias but the very possibility of bias that must disqualify a judge. The entire legal system is based upon the premise of an impartial mediator whose commitment is to the law itself rather than either party – one who is driven not by his own conscience but by the dictates of an institutionalized system of rules. Even the possibility of a partisan bias within the concerned Justice jeopardizes the very foundations of the system. The point at which Iftikhar Chaudhry led his first rally, made his first public statement, he seized to be an impartial mediator and became a political activist.
I believe that there are many justifiable political demands made by the lawyers’ movement regarding the constitution and its correct implementation. In his excellent article in Dawn, Mr. Qazi Faez Isa has highlighted merely a few of those. I also believe that the suspension of Chaudhry Iftikhar in March 2007 by Pervez Musharraf, and the subsequent emergency and mass-dismissals within the judiciary in November of the same year, were a grave and indefensible usurpation of power by the executive. However, this does not necessarily entail that any subsequent judicial appointments are void. Such a finding would render hundreds – if not thousands – of decided judgements over the past year and a half invalid, thus doing far more damage to the rule of law in Pakistan. Furthermore, such a finding would even cast doubt on the appointment of Iftikhar Chaudhry to the Supreme Court – which was achieved through a PCO order in 2000 under Musharraf.
Finally, we must remember that former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is not the first judge to battle executive authority and to suffer for it. Following the secession of Bangladesh, the Hamoodur Rehman Commission led by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman published a damning account of the atrocities in the 1971 war and was victimised for his commitment to the truth. In 1988, at the height of the Ziaul Haq regime – back when Mr Nawaz Sharif was on the other end of a dictatorship – Chief Justice Muhammad Haleem succeeded in legitimising political parties against the will of Zia in the case of Benazir Bhutto v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416). Unfortunately, such examples are not typical of the Pakistani experience. The legal system in Pakistan is broken, and has been for a long while. Unfortunately, Iftikhar Chaudhry is not the ‘magic bullet’ some would have us believe. Judicial independence is something to be achieved while struggling within the legal system not against it. It is achieved through a commitment to the rules, not to one’s personal opinions or conscience.
Yousuf Nasim was born in 1985 and raised in Karachi. He graduated from the University of Toronto in 2007 with a degree in history, political science and philosophy. He is currently studying law through the University of London.
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
DAWN.COM- ‘Technology intervention only way out in disaster situation’ November 4, 2009
- Militants kill two women teachers in Bajaur: officials November 4, 2009
- Interior Ministry submits missing persons report to SC November 4, 2009
- Thirty militants killed in South Waziristan street battles November 4, 2009
- President’s powers to be cut: Gilani November 3, 2009
- Civilian losses November 3, 2009
- A sinking presidency November 3, 2009
- Sararogha secured; 21 militants killed November 3, 2009
- UN report on Benazir’s murder may be deferred November 3, 2009
- Zardari convenes PPP committee meeting November 3, 2009
March 24th, 2009 at 15:00
WELL DONE MIDDLE CLASSES OF PAKISTAN
I had always maintained that political order in Pakistan will not improve unless the thinking classes bridle the thought process of the politicians.
Planned long march for restoration of judiciary is a testament of it.
Intelligentsia of Pakistan should be more assertive and impose their logical reasoning on the politicians of the country who lack logical political thinking. If the people of Pakistan were more demanding in logical manner, the politicians will be motivated by the public service spirit rather then self ego interest
In democracy every one has to contribute to the welfare of society.
The momentum of making the politicians listen to the logical reasoning of the people should not be lost. The middle classes of the society should continue and maintain the pressure on them. Reason with them to bury the past, move forward improving the political, social and state institutions all the way with rapidity.
The media should convey the aspiration of the people to the politicians and make certain they remain with in the constraint of healthy politics.
The society should retire the old politicians. It should generate new able politicians after vetting the candidates in the American ways to assess their commitment to public service and personal character.
I name some of the political talents of the new generation
Ahsan Iqbal PML(N)
Aitzaz Ahsan Attorney
Kashmala Tariq PML(Q)
Ferzana Raja PPP
Shiree Rehman PPP
Mr Kemal Mayor Karachi(MQM)
Mr Rashid Ex-minister PML(Q)
Imran Khan
There may be more who do not come on the television.
My assessment of Pakistan politics, its politicians is based on the news paper and TV.
March 23rd, 2009 at 19:08
Great…
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:37
Absolutely agree with the author. It was a completely political movement and ended up being a show of street power by Nawaz Sharif. If Sharif truly believes in judiciary independence why is he again today blackmailing the Government to get a verdict in his favour? And if Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry believes in it, he should step down voluntarily signifying that his return was indeed just a symbol of the supremacy of judiciary and not an end in itself.
March 22nd, 2009 at 14:54
It is too sad that nobody is taking a stand for “shariah implementation” in a country rather nation formed on the basis of same. It is rather pity that we are so averse to it and are sick of sick democracy.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01
Well, I don’t think judiciary or judiciary’s independence has been restored. Only Mr Chaudhry’s position has been reinstated and that in my opinion is a positive step which could ultimately pave the path for the independence of the judiciary.
I also agree with all those people who feel that lawyers’ movement was politicized and certain political figures took advantage of it, nonetheless, their movement did help reinstate the Chief Justice.
March 22nd, 2009 at 0:00
I believe judicial activism would be laid bare since he( Chaundhry Iftikhar) may have already been instructed to tread the water before making any big decisions. I think his reinstatement would be a big letdown for our nation, much as I liken Obama
March 21st, 2009 at 23:11
Lawyers in Pakistan have supported Nawaz Shareef not the justice, they should have did long march and sitin when Nawaz Shareef the then Prime minister of Pakistan ordered firing on supreme court of Pakistan just because the chief justice at that time refused to follow his unlawful orders,it was an attempt to assassinate the chief justice and establish barbaric act,but why would the lawyers marching against Musharraf and Zardari will remember it,because law in Pakistan is always on sale.Its a shame to see chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhary to keep his mouth shut for what Nawaz Shareef did to sabotage the system of justice during his tenure.
March 21st, 2009 at 22:37
Thanks for the distinction between law and politics, but what is “law”? What general principles are part of it? Do such principles have to be recognised by any government? What are implied principles? Who says A must say B? Good luck! There are other distinctions that are more important, for example the separation of powers. You have to take lawyers as they are.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:38
If any one belives that the so called Lawyer’s movement was an impartial movement and had no support or full backing of political parties mainly Nawaz Sharif’s party they must be living in a fool’s paradise.
Also how can the Chief Justice be impartial when he came back to power with the assistance of Nawaz Sharif and other parties.
I can assure you now that Nawaz Sharif’s only agenda is to come back to power ASAP.
I have never favoured Zardari because of his role in our Country, but I am shocked to the core on the vindictive actions of Nawaz brothers and how they have be hell bent on taking revange from Perwaiz Musharraf.
How many time more the people of Pakistan will be fooled by these Choudhries and Waderas for thei own gains and nothing else.
Mark my words readers; there will be no justice for ordinary people, there will be no improvement in our justice system and it will go on as it has been going on for ever, Corrupt for ever.
President Musharraf will be facing difficult times and soon Army will be back.
We do not need Chaudhries and Waderas who have shown their true, real and shamefull colors and selfish intentions and they truly dwarf the Pakistan armed forces wrong doings by showing how selfish they are in every which way possible.
God save Pakistan.
March 20th, 2009 at 20:47
People of Pakistan have given their verdict and I hope that they will persist in accountability of their rulers. I hope that ther restoration of judiciary is the first step towards a prosperous, equal and democratic Pakistan.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
March 17th, 2009 at 23:12
I am glad to see the jubilation in the air. It has been a looong time since this nation rejoiced about something. The CJ has made many promises in the past year or so, I just hope he is steadfast enough to live up to the people’s expectations, because the promises seem to far fletched.
Also, it is unbelievable how people – even educated ones – end up backing the same corrupt, hypocrite politicians. Come Musharraf, come Nawaz, come Zardari, or whoever else, once under the influence of power, the end result is the same: broken promises, corruption, paralyzed institutions, and hopelessness among the masses – history has proven it time and again across all nations. It is a rule of thumb.
March 17th, 2009 at 20:20
Right things that were supposed to be done by the parliament and the political system are being taken care of by the lawyers and hopefully by the judicial system.
Moral of the story…
Corrupt polticians need to change otherwise time to get rid of them both.
March 17th, 2009 at 16:15
@akram —-”Zadari should resign, and let the elected Prime Minister rule as befits a parliamentary democracy.” —- hmmm I’m not a supporter of Zardari, but I don’t think Zardari should resign. He is an elected president and he should complete his term.
March 16th, 2009 at 18:20
we should congratulate the Chief Justice, but also remind him that he has a huge responsibility on his shoudlers not to carry grudges into his job. I do believe he will try his best to act to uphold the law. Lets give him a chance. Zadari should resign, and let the elected Prime Minister rule as befits a parliamentary democracy.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:34
After reading all the comments, I wonder when the people of Pakistan will stop being faithful to these leaders and start being faithful to themselves.
I have never been a supporter of PPP, but the fact is that the PPP is an elected government and they should be allowed to run the government the way they deem fit for five years. If PPP is not doing good job it will be replaced in next election by people. Those who lost in election should wait five years for their turn. That is what democracy is.
A minority should not force a majority government to do something that it does not want to do. If lawyers think that they are justified in their demands and enjoy the support of people they should contest next election.
But may be the lawyers are doing what they do best. Sell their service to whoever can buy it. Never heard lawyer fighting on moral grounds, they always fight for money.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:01
So, finally lawyers got what they wanted through both violent and peaceful means. Surprisingly so called lawyers movement against injustice has been heavily involved in breaking the law including damaging the public property. And when action is taken against them, their leaders demand local officials to release their partners or they won’t participate in dialogues. And your so called objection against PCO judges; let me remind you Iftikhar Chaudhry was appointed chief justice under PCO as well than why is he given all these favors and labeled a HERO. This is all politics, Lawyers movement is nothing but a political agenda parsuaded by PMLN and other parties. Pakistan will never move forward until and unless we get rid of these politicians and I dont blame people for electing them because we truly dont have any option. Sorry to say but I dont have any hopes from this nation and my eyes feel with tears when I see my country going down the hill and being labeled as a failed state. People, please wake up and give a message to our leaders to correct their business. We need a change and we can bring one if we all unite.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:09
Our biggest problem is that we write & read much but when it comes to act, we are sleeping. CJ took an oath under PCO, he’s not impartial, he turned into a politician, his whole campaign is politicized and he has political intentions are the famous allegations by our intellectuals. I have 1 question for u…….. how many of you have done what this CJ has done for us? how many times you refused generals? How many times you were house arrested ? How many times your family member’s were house arrested? How many times you were manhandled by law enforcement agencies?
Lets settle somewhere: he is the lesser evil and i think he is one of the cure if not only cure for our problems. Lets be with him and welcome him, lets care for these few people who listen to their conscience.
March 15th, 2009 at 21:23
Let me paraphrase the author’s point of view…
Shot of shutting up and sitting in your house, you are being political. And he with his degrees from U of T and University of London is sitting in his high chair judging you and everyone else.
Well Mr. Nasim, Iftakhar Chauhdry is not the magic bullet but he represents the physical embodiment of the metaphorical term. And it is through this physical embodiment that the whole nation is supporting the supremacy of law and not any given political party. Anyone and everyone is free to support. What I am saying is that this struggle is for a commitment to the rules, as you put it. And when the other side does not believe in commitments and rules, it must be reminded of the same via the power of the people.
As for yourself, not only did I find your views biased, your style of writing betrays that you are judgemental.
Cheers.
March 15th, 2009 at 18:22
NO!
PML- N and other political parties of APDM inculding PTI and Jamati-e-Islami are on the right track.
There are many reason for it.PPP had broken many promises from the day 1 and enough is enough.This country is not property of an individuals. When a leader made a commitment he/she is supposed to fulfill it at any cost.
March 15th, 2009 at 13:49
The problem Pakistan faces currently is they don’t any other option than the two which are equally worse than other.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:02
You know the way these lawyers have been behaving in public , I wonder how many of them are actually qualified.
Is destruction of public property against the law ? So who is the lawyer ..here ?
Regards
Nasir
March 15th, 2009 at 9:17
It’s just a comment to help you find a way out of your present crisis you are going thru.. Prayers & Blessings are with you all.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:14
You, PPP, PMl-N, give it up….and find a way together to build a democratic system in Pakistan which will avoid Martial Law from coming back into Power and oust the the terrorists from the country, cause Pakistan does’t need that situation in the future, if it wants to come back into the world of fiscal stability, political freedon, and economic sustainability for its people, it has to realize & work towards achieving it’s goal for the betterment of the people of Pakistan.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:56
Dear Author,
The author seems to be too scared to even mention the name of “Dogar”, his “impartiality” and “his relationship to PPP”.
Is the author even sure about his own neutrality?
Such arguments in the “acedamic guise” seems a bit too much for the readers of “DAWN”.
March 14th, 2009 at 19:35
I can understand the romance my brother has. i had the same till i saw the reality from up close and personally.
CJ in not a man of integrity. If he was he would have fought for the cause of independence not his seat. One question if he dies would independence go with him.
Sometimes in the mist created by intensity of the issue we forget what we actually fought for was not the right way of achieving the cause.
His chargesheet no matter how bias it might be must be looked into and then the person be judged before lay the life for a person driven by his ambition at the cost of a nation and the country