Charter of Democracy

From the point of view of crisis prevention, the 36-point Charter of Democracy outlines sensible measures that could go some way towards resolving the present political crisis. But will the PPP’s offer to ‘negotiate’ an end to the present crisis on the basis of the charter signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in May 2006 be taken up? Unlikely. First, the long march is ostensibly for the restoration of the deposed judges, but the disqualification of the Sharif brothers and the imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab have given the march a decidedly political hue. Negotiating an end to the judges’ issue without resolving the political crisis in Punjab is now a non-starter. But on the political front the PPP still hasn’t backed off from staking a claim to the Punjab government, effectively ensuring the PML-N won’t back off from supporting the long march and the planned sit-in. Second, the Charter of Democracy does not have an answer for what is at the heart of the judges’ issue: the restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry to the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The PPP has made it clear that it does not want Iftikhar Chaudhry back as chief justice; the lawyers and the opposition parties have made it clear that they won’t settle for anything less than the return of the deposed chief justice. Both sides interpret the charter to their own advantage. Third, the bona fides of President Zardari as a sincere negotiator are in serious doubt. Having reneged on previous agreements on the judges’ issue, the opposition will be leery of trusting him again. Negotiations inevitably take time, and whatever the PPP leadership says right now, the lawyers and opposition will worry that offers to negotiate are just a ploy to see off the threat of the long march and sit-in. More fundamentally, however, the problem has been that neither side has appeared interested in solutions that engender stability. Consider the judiciary. The PPP has baulked at reinstating Iftikhar Chaudhry, but it has also made no attempt to shore up judicial independence. President Zardari has appointed dozens of judges to the superior courts. Could he not have formed a commission to nominate candidates for the vacancies as per the Charter of Democracy? Could a joint parliamentary committee not have been formed to hold public hearings on the candidates forwarded by the prime minister, again in line with the charter? As for the lawyers and the opposition parties, they have consistently demanded of Iftikhar Chaudhry that once reinstated he should clean up politics with no compromise and no mercy. The judge himself has wholeheartedly embraced the idea of the crusading judge. So when nobody is aiming for stability, is it really a surprise if instability is the outcome?