Mustafa Qadri
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 January 2010 15.10 GMT

With his chequered past and unlikely rise to the top, it is understandable that Asif Ali Zardari has faced constant calls to resign ever since becoming president of Pakistan two years ago. The central focus of the grievances has been Pakistan’s supreme court where a raft of charges have been submitted against Zardari and most of the senior leaders of the ruling Pakistan Peoples party by a motley mix of political parties, private citizens, and the court itself.

But in the glasshouse that is Pakistani politics the risk is that perceptions of judicial independence will be shattered by all the stone throwing. To understand the fracas it is necessary to consider recent history. After public pressure forced the Zardari government to reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, there was widespread celebration that at last Pakistan had found one institution that was above the cronyism that has plagued political life here.

Tables turn quickly in Pakistan. So it is perhaps no surprise that almost immediately the reconstituted supreme court began hearing challenges against members of the Zardari government. That included a petition by the chief justice himself against the National Reconciliation Ordinance, an amnesty granted by former President Pervez Musharraf after the United States pushed him to welcome Zardari and his wife, the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007, back into Pakistani politics.

Last December the Chaudhry supreme court ruled the NRO was unconstitutional, opening the floodgates for the current cases. Although attention has focused on charges against Zardari, the irony is that many of those bringing them have a history of intimidating the courts, disavowing them for being un-Islamic or have themselves faced charges ranging from corruption to murder at some point in their career.

What makes the current drama intriguing is the way that age-old double standard has become enmeshed with new political twists. Historically incapable of reining in the powerful, the courts have always been a favoured forum for otherwise disparate opposition groups to occasionally forget their mutual disdain in order to channel their common enmity towards whoever happens to be in government. The difference now is that, for the first time, the powerful are fearful of Pakistan’s highest court. That exposes it to the risk of being swept along with the political zeitgeist.

As the country continues to struggle with terrorism and a flagging economy, Asif Zardari, long considered uncritically obedient to diktats from Washington, has become emblematic of a government that most Pakistanis find easy to hate and impossible to love. Known derisively as “Mr 10%” for his alleged embezzlement of government revenues while his wife was prime minister in the 1990s, the president has faced several lawsuits in Pakistan, Britain, France and Switzerland over the last 15 years. Although most of them were dropped after the NRO, the supreme court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional has breathed new life into Pakistan’s courts and at least two cases in Switzerland and France.

Like any politician, Zardari will do everything in his power to cling to the presidency. In a departure from what has hitherto been an aloof tenure, he has begun a countrywide speaking tour aimed at rousing public confidence. But, ironically, there is a good chance he will agree to curtail his legal and de facto powers as president. Already he has transferred the authority to launch Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to the prime minister, a largely symbolic gesture given the army’s control of military affairs.

Yet Zardari still retains the power to appoint the chief of army staff, the most powerful post in the country, and dismiss the National Assembly. With General Ashfaq Kayani‘s term as army chief set to expire this year and parliament the only institution with the lawful power to revoke his presidential immunities, Zardari retains key bargaining chips should his situation deteriorate.

As president, Zardari enjoys constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution. But some legal experts argue that it does not preclude civil suits. Some, invoking nebulous provisions of the constitution inserted by the Islamist dictator Zia ul-Haq in 1985, have called for his removal on the grounds of poor character. Whatever the result of these arguments, it is clear that Zardari will be exposed to a toxic cocktail of civil and criminal charges the moment he leaves office.

Do not be surprised, then, if Zardari flees the country once his presidency ends, or if the Obama administration demands that he be left unmolested as a private citizen – much as the Bush administration protected former president Pervez Musharraf from prosecution when he resigned in August 2008. How does the supreme court fit into this? No one really knows. With the ball firmly in the court, however, it remains to be seen if the judges will pursue the military, mullahs and other politicians with the same vigour as they are pursuing Asif Zardari.

Mustafa Qadri
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 5 December 2009 18.00 GMT

It may be more a matter of wits than weapons, but the battle for control of Pakistan‘s executive branch of government is as significant for the country as the war against the Taliban. Resolving this latest crisis, the fiercest tussle over the stewardship of the country since Pervez Musharraf was ousted from the presidency in August 2008, will determine the future of Pakistan’s parliamentary democracy for many years to come.

Although ostensibly centred on current President Asif Ali Zardari’s immunity from a raft of court cases, the dispute has engulfed many of the most senior members of government.

It all boils down to a national reconciliation ordinance drawn up by Musharraf in November 2007 when he was still president. As his popularity and legitimacy plummeted, the Bush administration pushed for a power sharing arrangement between the general and one of his great rivals, the slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto who was living in exile between Dubai and London at the time. But a raft of court cases against Bhutto, her husband Asif Zardari, and many of their cohorts precluded an easy return to Pakistan to contest national elections. The NRO effectively gave them the immunity they desperately need to return to politics.

Following victory in national elections last year, the Pakistan People’s party, under Asif Zardari’s stewardship following Bhutto’s assassination in December 2007, formed a coalition government with a number of other parties and pressed for the NRO to be passed as law. But parliament and the supreme court conspired to scupper those plans, leaving the controversial amnesty to expire last Saturday, 28 November.

As far as we know, 8,041 individuals were given immunity under the NRO. They include Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s influential ambassador to the United States, and Rehman Malik, a key Zardari lieutenant and spearhead of the civilian administration’s push against extremists. Pakistan’s high commissioner to Britain, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, is also on the NRO list. So is the Britain-based head of the Muttahida Quami Movement, Altaf Hussain who, along with two of his deputies, faces more charges than any other individual on the list.

The charges against the thousands on the list, alleging everything from corruption, abuse of authority and even murder, make for harrowing reading. And although the government claims it will not protect anyone from the court’s findings, there can be no doubt that many of the charges are politically motivated. Virtually every prominent politician in Pakistan has faced or is facing a court case lodged by their foes.

But in among the mudslinging and the uncertainty it has created, the move to refer the NRO to the courts is a powerful, if indirect endorsement for the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. The government, faced with a hostile mix of political opponents and opportunists, says it will abide by any court rulings against those on the NRO.

A revitalised supreme court headed by Iftikhar Chaudhry, the fiercely independent chief justice who survived first Musharraf and then Zardari’s attempt to remove him, is expected to rule on the legality of the NRO in the not too distant future. He has already set a supreme court bench to commence hearings against those named in the NRO from Monday 7 December.

What the court eventually determines will also likely determine the fate of the present government.

So long as he remains head of state, President Zardari will retain immunity from any prosecution. Desperate to remain in office, however, he has already ceded control of the country’s nuclear arsenal to the prime minister. It is expected that he will also concede the powers to dismiss the national assembly and appoint military chiefs. That would be a welcome move as the prime minister is more answerable to the parliament than the president.

Current prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has undoubtedly been the biggest winner in this saga. Although installed by Zardari to be a pliant prime minister, he has increasingly drifted away from his orbit. It is well known that he has courted the Sharif brothers, former prime minister Nawaz and Punjab chief minister Shahbaz, who control the largest opposition party and dominate politics in the most populous province of Punjab. If key members of the PPP-led government falls due to the NRO , Gilani, who was a member of Sharif’s party until falling out of favour in the 1990s, could form government with them. To his distinct advantage, Gilani was not on the NRO list because the courts have already cleared him of corruption charges.

The political wrangling certainly reduces Pakistan’s capacity to deal effectively with the three largest crises plaguing the nation: the ongoing war with the Pakistan Taliban, the inability to match energy supplies with demand, and a weak, highly inflationary economy.

With so many Pakistanis sceptical of a democratic process that historically has failed to deliver, however, now is the best opportunity to showcase the merits of Pakistan’s fragile secular institutions.

]]> http://mustafaqadri.net/wp/articles/the-other-battle-for-pakistan/feed/ 0 http://mustafaqadri.net/wp/articles/from-dictators-to-fugitives/ http://mustafaqadri.net/wp/articles/from-dictators-to-fugitives/#comments Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:35:03 +0000 mustafa http://mustafaqadri.net/wp/?p=566

The knives are out when dictators fall from power, but the politics of retribution is rarely clean or cathartic

Mustafa Qadri
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 30 August 2009 17,00 BST

The tables turn quickly in politics, but for dictators the shift from all-powerful to powerless can be rather sudden. Over a period of 12 months, the last Shah of Iran went from feared dictator to refugee who struggled to find asylum in three different continents (including the US, his one-time staunchest supporter).

Most out-of-power autocrats look to self-imposed exile to shield themselves from vengeful countrymen desperate to settle scores. Perhaps that is why Pakistan’s Musharraf, former president and army chief, recently bought a central London apartment.

There was a brief period of quiet after Musharraf was pressured to resign as president in August last year. That silence was soon broken, however, as he engaged in a worldwide speaking tour. More recently, the retired army chief made overtures to the main faction of a political party, the Muslim League Qaid branch, favoured under his rule, only to be rejected.

Perhaps even more damning, the army’s top spokesperson, General Athar Abbas, wrote a revealing article on an official website, arguing that Musharraf and other previous military rulers had harmed the army’s image.

Even political foes are now lining up to bring Musharraf down, and, in scenes reminiscent of the backlash against Indira Gandhi following her 1977 electoral defeat in neighbouring India, Pakistan’s courts have become a central front in the drama.

Several different actions have been filed at the courts, ranging from those involving people kidnapped by security agencies under Musharraf’s rule to those challenging his alleged role in the murder of the celebrated Balochi statesmen Akbar Khan Bughti.

Politically motivated court cases are not new in Pakistan. The country’s first democratically elected leader, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was hanged after a court – under pressure from then Army Chief Zia ul Haq – found him guilty of a trumped-up charge of conspiracy to murder a political rival. Practically every prominent politician has had charges against them brought to the bench.

The Musharraf trials are nevertheless unprecedented in this country’s young history of democratic rule – military rulers are rarely brought to trial here. Indeed, no military ruler has ever been brought before the due process of the law.

But the current battle is broader than Musharraf or the legacy of military rule he represents. Among the petitions filed with the courts are several that seek to annul the National Reconciliation Ordinance under which the former president allowed exiled political leaders like Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan to contest elections eventually held in February 2008. Bhutto was killed two months before those elections, but the NRO enabled her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, to eventually become the country’s president.

In seeking to dismantle his legacy current political players are also looking to undermine incumbent politicians, particularly President Asif Ali Zardari.

The NRO washed away the stain of previous corruption charges that had disqualified Zardari and several of his stalwarts from high office. Zardari alone was cleared of five outstanding corruption charges a mere month after his party won the February 2008 elections. Removal of NRO protection would almost certainly reopen these dirty cans of worms bringing government business to a total halt.

Although the supreme court – Pakistan’s highest judiciary – has avoided ruling on the NRO cases, late last month it ruled a state of emergency imposed by Musharraf in November 2007 illegal. According to Athar Minallah, a senior member of the lawyers’ movement that challenged the former president’s clamp-down, the ruling demonstrates that “Pakistan is on its path towards rule of law”.

Detractors say the case unduly politicises the judiciary which – given it includes no fewer than 14 judges, including the chief justice, dismissed by Musharraf under the state of emergency – cannot promise neutrality.

To its credit, however, the supreme court has avoided the issue of charging Musharraf with treason, saying it is a matter for parliament to decide. For its part, the government says it won’t endorse cases against Musharraf, although Attorney-General Sardar Latif Khosa spiced things up by saying it would support his prosecution if unanimously sought by parliament.

Such tribulations are common to many countries going through the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet infamously received lifetime amnesty from charges of torture and other crimes until eventually being brought to trial shortly before his death. In contrast, many Argentinean generals guilty of atrocities during their country’s “Dirty War” during the 1970s and 80s were eventually prosecuted.

The Obama administration is currently wrestling with the decision whether to investigate US interrogators for alleged torture of suspected terrorists, although the prospect of high level officials such as former vice president, Dick Cheney, secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, or Bush himself being charged remains unlikely.

The chances of Pervez Musharraf being indicted are probably more likely, but remain slim. Regardless, the current court dramas demonstrate the increasing influence of the judiciary, and especially the supreme court, in Pakistan’s political landscape.

Ordinary People Power

Mustafa Qadri

Monday was Republic Day in Pakistan, the 69th anniversary of the moment when, under the Lahore Resolution, the idea of Pakistan was formally adopted by the subcontinent’s Muslim leadership. Seven years later, on August 14, 1947, the idea would turn into the reality of an independent state.

Not all of colonial India’s Muslims accepted the notion of a separate Muslim state, but around seven million, including an equal number of Hindus and Sikhs who were moving in the opposite direction, left their homes and often faced communal violence to join those already living in what is now Pakistan.

Pakistan’s 170 million citizens have been living with the consequences ever since.

Despite the calamities of partition, Pakistan remains a true melting pot in every sense of the word. There are several ethnic groups, although Punjab, the most populous and wealthiest state, has historically dominated the country. Religion is not uniformly practised here either: Islam may be the religion of around 90 per cent of the population, but practices vastly differ along sectarian, cultural and ethnic lines. While clashes between Shia and Sunni Muslims have been ferocious for some time, particularly since the Zia ul-Haq dictatorship that spawned the Taliban, Pakistan’s religious sects have generally lived harmoniously with one another.

Many of my own relatives, practitioners of the tolerant Hanafi tradition of Sunni Islam, have married into the Shia community.

There are small but significant non-Muslim communities in Pakistan too: there are believed to be around six million Christians, Hindus and Sikhs. One of the great shames of Pakistani society is the prejudice faced by these communities, particularly in the poorest non-Muslim neighbourhoods. When one small Hindu community of dalits or untouchables in Karachi showed me pictures of police brutality and bulldozers destroying their homes I was reminded of the Palestinian communities whose demolished homes I saw in the occupied West Bank.

But, like all countries, there is more to Pakistan than this prejudice. Many members of Pakistan’s minority communities have prospered, like the Hindu businessmen who greeted me in the offices of the Pakistan Hindu Council last year with tea and a picture of Mohamma Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father, draped in a Pakistan flag. Or Taranjeet, a television news producer who proudly gave me a tour of the temple complex in Lahore where the great Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh is buried.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Pakistan has been the focal point for our darkest fears: a predominantly Muslim nuclear-armed state struggling to control a violent insurgency inspired by the most oppressive and puritan of religious impulses. That has generally been the explanation for the West’s love affair with Pakistan’s Army, the most powerful institution in a generally institutionally weak state. Between 2006 and 2007 alone, for instance, the United States has given the Pakistan Army $3.5 billion in military aid. Even the Australian Government has offered to provide military assistance to Pakistan.

The love affair with the Pakistan Army has helped maintain military rule for 33 of the country’s 62 years of the country’s existence. According to the noted military analyst Ayesha Siddiqua this long experience of military rule combined with the domination of civilian politics by a small group of elites has stunted the institutional development of a democratic culture in Pakistan.

Nor has the military response alone solved Pakistan’s Taliban problem. Rather than diminish the threat of Islamic militancy, military operations against the Taliban and like-minded insurgents have devastated already poor tribal societies – killing thousands and displacing at least 450,000.

Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has called for a tripling of US non-military aid to Pakistan – around $7.5 billion over the next five years – to offset the reliance on the Army. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and the British Foreign Office have announced similar, smaller projects.

Although there is a lively civil society and a remarkably free media, most Pakistanis live in extreme poverty while politics is controlled by civil and military elites that are close to totally unaccountable. The poorest and most undemocratic regions of the country are the tribal areas infiltrated by the Taliban. Literacy rates are lowest in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas – around 30 per cent for men and three per cent for women.

Balochistan, physically the largest and most resource rich province in the country, is so under-developed that literacy rates are equally poor and the local economy rests largely on smuggling. Both regions are hotbeds for the Taliban.

So too is the Swat valley. A mere 100 miles north of the capital Islamabad, the restive mountains of Swat are beginning their first taste of de facto Taliban rule after a peace deal was reached between a local pro-Taliban group and the provincial government. Under the agreement the Taliban are to stop fighting in exchange for the implementation of Sharia Law.

Last week government-appointed judges in Swat were told to stay away from the provincial courts.

In an interview to a local outlet, local pro-Taliban leader Sufi Mohammad said the judges of the State were no longer needed because their pronouncements were no longer valid. Pakistan already has a Sharia, or Islamic law, court system; but even this is no longer recognised. The system envisaged by Sufi has one selling point: the hearings and decisions are swift.

Already, since last week, Qazis or religious judges appointed by Sufi have made a number of rulings: 30 decisions in one day alone according to authorities.

Under the old civil and common law system still used in most of Pakistan, legal process was mired in corruption and typically took several years. Now even the people of neighbouring Bajaur tribal agency want Sharia law.

At the same time as Swat was embracing its new legal system, the Government was reinstating Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and all other the judges removed by the country’s last military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf. As I wrote for Unleashed earlier this year, Chaudhry is a brave and independent jurist who, before he was removed two years ago, exposed Pakistan’s elite to an unprecedented level of accountability. Support for his reinstatement enjoyed an equally unprecedented level of public support from rich and poor.

The message to the world this Republic Day could not be clearer – improving the lot of the ordinary Pakistani offers the best opportunity for defeating extremism.

By Mustafa Qadri

March 21, 2009

Writing From Islamabad, Pakistan — Politics is never dull in Pakistan. This week, it was inspirational too.

On Monday, I watched people flock to the home of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. A tense standoff between the government and a coalition of opposition groups over Chaudhry’s reinstatement as chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court had finally been resolved. After two years of government-enforced “retirement,” Chaudhry would return to the bench.

A cross- section of Pakistan’s diverse society gathered by the thousands on the lush, manicured lawn of the chief justice’s official residence to celebrate — young and old, men and women, religious and secular, rich and poor. Lawyers in their black suits, the signature uniform of Pakistan’s democratic revolutionaries, danced the bhangra as drums sounded and chants about freedom and justice filled the air.

It was a noisy victory party for democracy and the rule of law, and it contained a positive message about Pakistan for the world.

Since 9/11, the very name of Pakistan has been synonymous with the West’s deepest, darkest fears: a nuclear-armed state with a predominantly Muslim society struggling to control an insurgency inspired by the most oppressive and puritanical of religious impulses. That has generally been the explanation for the billions of dollars in military aid the United States has given to Pakistan’s army. (The New America Foundation estimates that in 2006 and 2007 alone, the U.S. gave $3.5 billion in military aid to the Pakistani army, the most powerful institution in an institutionally weak state.)

The dark view has only been underlined by the violence that has engulfed Pakistan — the murder of its most celebrated politician, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in a suicide attack at the end of 2007; the Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad; Pakistan’s alleged role in the attacks in Mumbai, India, in November; and the attack on Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore this month.

But Chaudhry’s reinstatement represents the final act of a popular revolt that should be as meaningful to the West as the violence and fanatical Islam. He was not the first judge to be fired by an autocrat in Pakistan, but his removal by the former president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was met with unprecedented public protests. Ultimately, the protesters won and Musharraf was forced to step down.

President Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower, emerged as the head of the Pakistan People’s Party and Musharraf’s unlikely replacement. He soon reminded people of Musharraf by banning pro-Chaudhry protests, arresting opposition leaders, trying to shut down private news channels and refusing to reinstate the chief justice. On Monday, fearing a fate similar to Musharraf’s, Zardari finally caved.

The U.S. role in all of this was glaring by its absence. It has preferred to invest heavily in the Pakistani army for more than three decades. According to noted military analyst Ayesha Siddiqua, the long experience of military rule combined with the domination of civilian politics by a small group of elites have stunted the institutional development of a democratic culture in Pakistan.

Not surprisingly, when lawyers and ordinary citizens took to the streets in 2007, there was mostly collective silence from Pakistan’s key Western allies. Former President George W. Bush went so far as to describe Musharraf as “a solid friend” who deserved the United States’ continued support. Although the U.S. spoke of spreading democracy to the Muslim world, it did nothing publicly to help this most democratic of peoples’ movements.

Recently, positive signals have begun to emanate from Washington. Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has called for a tripling of U.S. nonmilitary aid to Pakistan — about $7.5 billion over the next five years. More than the money, however, the U.S. government has to start listening to the people of Pakistan.

Despite millions of dollars spent by the State Department on opinion polls in Pakistan, there has been a catastrophic failure to understand the local mind-set. As recently as Monday, that failure was in evidence when President Obama’s envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, praised Zardari, of all people, for his “statesmanlike” decision to reinstate the chief justice.

Where was the praise for the chief justice who had braved two authoritarian presidents, or for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Pakistanis who risked assault and arrest to support him? To ordinary Pakistanis, it sent the familiar signal that the United States supports the autocrats over the people.

The Chaudhry victory will not solve Pakistan’s problems. But by demonstrating the importance of functioning and accountable institutions, the country’s lawyers may well have found an opening for the long road out of the country’s present hell.

Is the West watching?

Mustafa Qadri is Pakistan correspondent for the Diplomat magazine and newmatilda.com. His website is mustafaqadri.net.

Democracy revitalised by Pakistan’s Chief Justice

By demonstrating the importance of functioning and accountable institutions, Pakistan’s lawyers may well have paved the road upon which the long road from its present hell may be charted, writes Mustafa Qadri.

Long March ends in triumph

Instead of violent confrontation there was jubilation in Islamabad yesterday as the Government bowed to protestors’ demands and reinstated the sacked Chief Justice. Mustafa Qadri reports

Most Pakistanis woke up without any knowledge of what had just occurred. Early on Monday morning, on the day that the Long March protestors were due to arrive in Islamabad, the Pakistan Government finally agreed to their demands to reinstate Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court.

“It is time to fulfil our promises,” said Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani in a snap televised speech while most Pakistanis were fast asleep. The announcement came after frenetic discussions between the Government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari from the Pakistan Peoples Party, and the Pakistan Muslim League, led by key opposition politician Nawaz Sharif.

Just a day earlier the country was on the verge of a political crisis as a confrontation between the Zardari-controlled Government and Sharif’s coalition of opposition groups escalated.

The ostensible cause of the friction was Zardari’s refusal to honour a Charter of Democracy which had been signed by his wife — slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto — and Nawaz Sharif in 2006 during the height of former president Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorship. A crucial symbol of Zardari’s failure on this score was his continued refusal to reinstate Chaudhry, who was sacked by Musharraf two years ago.

At the time, Chaudhry was accused of intimidating advocates in court, using his influence to get his son a Government job, and of abusing his transport privileges. More than that, however, he had turned himself into a marked man by making rulings that challenged the unaccountable nature of government business in the country.

In a country mired in endemic corruption, particularly at the highest levels of power, the decision to remove a Chief Justice over seemingly innocuous charges created widespread suspicion among the legal community — which immediately rushed to his defence and formed the lawyers’ movement at the centre of the Long March protest.

President Zardari is technically not the head of state and he is meant to be co-chair of the Pakistan Peoples Party. Yet in reality he is very much the key decision maker and his clamp down on the protestors during the Long March reminded the population of the darkest days of the Musharraf regime.

The Government’s decision to back down and reinstate Chaudhry was therefore greeted with a collective sigh of relief throughout the country. There was widespread jubilation in cities across the country as grown men danced the bangara in their black suits while drums blared and sweets were distributed to the crowds.

The international community too was glad to see the dispute resolved, as was the business community — the Karachi Stock Exchange rallied this morning in response to the announcement.

The hill-top official residence of the Chief Justice was mobbed by well wishers of every social and political hue. People waited, for the most part patiently, to catch a glimpse of the one popular figure in this country not considered corrupt or despotic. Lawyers in their signature black suits were joined by civil and political activists and ordinary citizens — rich and poor alike.

“This has been a movement for the small people and the big people,” said Zahid Iqbal, an Islamabad taxi driver carrying large banner with Justice Chaudhry’s face on it. He, like so many hundreds of thousands, had been with the lawyers’ movement from the very start.

Judges of the superior courts do not generally enter the popular canon. Few, in any society, can name the bench of their country’s highest court. Yet Chaudhry has captured the popular imagination in Pakistan precisely because of his independence and regard for the rule of law. “He has zero tolerance… [for] corruption, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses,” explained Aitzaz Ahsan, one of the leaders of the lawyers’ movement.

Chaudhry built that reputation on the back of judgments which challenged the generally unaccountable nature of government business. That included deciding against a Musharraf government decision to sell the national steel mills to a consortium linked to then prime minister Shaukat Aziz for markedly less than the market value. Most significantly, Chaudhry challenged the generals by ordering the Government to explain the whereabouts of hundreds of missing persons believed kidnapped under the aegis of the United States’ “war on terror”.

When, in August 2007, Chaudhry threatened to jail the head of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency if he did not produce one of these missing persons, he likely sealed his own fate. On 3 November 2007, President Musharraf announced a state of emergency. A hastily convened bench of the Chaudhry Supreme Court held that the announcement was unconstitutional the very same day. Soldiers stormed the Court and duly arrested him. In total 60 judges from Pakistan’s federal and state courts were removed.

In a country where, from its very founding, the powerful do as they wish and no Supreme Court has ever challenged the writ of the generals and presidents, Chaudhry has been a trailblazer. Rabble rousers and political adversaries routinely die in mysterious circumstances in Pakistan. Every major politician buffers him or herself with a personal security outfit. The roads are off limits to ordinary citizens whenever the president or prime minister decides to travel.

Over the weekend, residents of Islamabad witnessed the intimidating sight of giant cargo containers being placed at every major roadway. By Sunday the city was cut off from the rest of the country. By Monday morning, however, the barriers had been removed as quickly as they were put in place. Instead of the protracted and violent clash between Government authorities and opposition groups that many had expected, Islamabad remained peaceful throughout the day.

“[The decision to reinstate Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as Chief Justice] is in the best interests of stability in the country,” said presidential spokesperson Farah Naz Isphani.

In the end, it was in President Zardari’s interests too.

Pakistan will likely remain plagued by crises well after today. But by demonstrating the importance of functioning and accountable institutions, the country’s lawyers may well have started the country on its long march out of this present quagmire.

Democracy has been revitalised by Pakistan’s Chief Justice

President Zardari’s decision to reinstate Chief Justice Chaudhry has stabilised the country – and saved his political career

Mustafa Qadri