A newly assertive Supreme Court is taking on the Pakistani government
and army in a series of high-profile cases, signaling a power shift in a
country vital to U.S. efforts to fight Islamist militants and negotiate
peace in Afghanistan.
The jury is still out on the implications.
Some
believe the court's actions are part of a necessary, if messy,
rebalancing in a country that has long been dominated by the army or
seen chaotic periods of rule by corrupt politicians. Others view the
court as just another unaccountable institution undermining the elected
government.
The U.S. believes a stable, civilian-led democracy in
Pakistan is in its interests. But the diffusion of power could make it
even more difficult for Washington to prod the country to do its
bidding, especially given rampant anti-American sentiment.
The
army has been the principal point of contact for the U.S. in the decade
since it resuscitated ties with Pakistan to help with the Afghan war.
While the army remains the strongest Pakistani institution, recent
events indicate it has ceded some of that power to the Supreme Court and
the country's civilian leaders.
"Welcome to the new Pakistan,
where power centers are diffuse, outcomes less certain and no grand
conspirator to make it all come together, or fall apart, at the
appropriate time," columnist Cyril Almeida wrote recently in Dawn, a
Pakistani newspaper.
The Supreme Court's activism was on full display Monday.
The
court charged Pakistan's prime minister with contempt for refusing to
reopen an old corruption case against the president. Later, it ordered
two military intelligence agencies to explain why they held seven
suspected militants in allegedly harsh conditions for 18 months without
charges.
Some government supporters have accused the court of
acting on the army's behalf to topple the country's civilian leaders,
especially in a case probing whether the government sent a memo to
Washington last year asking for help in stopping a supposed military
coup.
But no evidence has surfaced to support that allegation, and
the court's moves against the military seem to conflict with the
theory. The judges have also taken up a case pending for 15 years in
which the army's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, is
accused of funneling money to political parties to influence national
elections.
"There may be a confluence of interests between the
court, the army and the political opposition, but the court's agenda is
also institutional: It is determined to establish itself as a player to
be feared and respected," said Almeida.
The court's actions
against the army are a significant turnaround. For much of Pakistan's
nearly 65-year history, the court has been pliant to the army's demands
and validated three coups carried out by the generals.
The current
chief justice was on the court in 2000 when it endorsed a coup by Gen.
Pervez Musharraf. He has pledged the judges will never take such action
again, but it's unclear whether the court has the will or authority to
challenge the army if it fights back.
The Pakistani media have
largely applauded the court's activism against the army, which has also
had its power checked by a more active media and the demands of a bloody
war against a domestic Taliban insurgency.
The court's pressure on the civilian government has been more controversial.
Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani could be sent to prison and lose his job if
convicted of contempt, while the memo scandal is seen as a threat to
President Asif Ali Zardari.
The chief justice has tussled with
Zardari in the past, and some have alleged the cases against the
government are partially driven by a personal vendetta against the
president.
"I think the Supreme Court is going too far," said
Pakistani political analyst Hasan-Askari Rizvi. "In the past, it was the
army that would remove the civilian government, and now it's the
Supreme Court, another unelected institution trying to overwhelm elected
leadership."
Supreme Court justices are appointed by the
president based on recommendations from a judicial commission working in
conjunction with parliament. The judges can serve until the age of 65
and can be removed only by a judicial council.
The cases have
distracted the government from dealing with pressing issues facing the
country, including an ailing economy and its battle against the
Pakistani Taliban.
Moeed Yusuf, an expert on Pakistan at the
United States Institute of Peace, said the jockeying for power between
the army, Supreme Court and civilian government was expected given the
shifting political landscape and could be beneficial to the country in
the long run.
"No country has managed to bypass several phases of
such recalibration before they have arrived at a consensual, democratic
and accountable system where institutions finally are able to synergize
rather than compete endlessly," Yusuf wrote in a column in Dawn.
The
political turmoil has likely complicated U.S. efforts to repair its
troubled relations with Pakistan and get the country to focus on helping
negotiate peace with the Afghan Taliban, with whom Islamabad has
historical ties.
U.S. attempts to enlist Pakistan's cooperation
could get even more difficult as power is carved up among the various
actors, said Rizvi, the political analyst.
"No single group will
totally dominate the system," said Rizvi. "That will slow down decision
making further in Pakistan because nobody can take full responsibility
for making a decision." AP
