As Pakistan remains locked in possibly the worst period of uncertainty during its 65-year history, the country’s ruling elite continues to press ahead with a familiar theme, albeit a controversial one.
Instead of learning lessons from the past, Pakistan’s rulers seem determined to tread familiar ground, ignoring some of their most controversial choices that have already cast doubts over the sanctity of the country’s democratic order.
One such colossal mistake is, indeed, the matter of disregarding the rule of law, simply to protect controversial individuals in high offices. For instance, the dismissal of former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani last month on a contempt of court charge, marked the grand finale of an episode that began when he was ordered by the Supreme Court to concede ground on formally requesting authorities in Switzerland to reopen cases of corruption against President Asif Ali Zardari.
Instead of complying with the court’s verdict, Gilani preferred to defy the judges, leaving them with no choice but dismiss him. Similarly, the new Prime Minister, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, has been involved in an investigation by Pakistan’s Supreme Court over alleged kickbacks paid in the case of temporary electricity generation stations, while he served as the Minister of Water and Power. Known as “Rental Power Plants”, the case made Ashraf notorious to the point where some in the Pakistani press dubbed him as “Raja Rental”.
At the same time, Pakistan has recently witnessed a concerted effort by some to discredit the reputation of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This follows claims that one of justice Chaudhry’s sons had received large illegal pay-offs from a well known Pakistani property tycoon. The matter is presently under investigation by Pakistan’s Supreme Court.
Going forward, however, this controversy alone must not create room to discredit the Supreme Court. Indeed, for any democratic society, a thriving legal system is essential to ensure not just the continuity of a civilian political order, but also the sustenance of that order. In Pakistan, however, President Zardari’s government and the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) have instead chosen to defy the writ of the Supreme Court.
The case against Zardari, which eventually forced out Gilani, in itself, provides vivid evidence on the government’s disregard for the writ of the nation’s highest court. If Pakistan’s judicial system seeks to emerge as an essential pillar of the country’s emerging democratic framework, it is vital that the role of the Supreme Court must remain central to the emerging framework.
But Zardari and the political system he represents have instead chosen to defy the law, knowing that their ruling order is in more than just a fair bit of trouble. The ruling coalition, which came to power in 2008, has only become surrounded with one controversy after another during its tenure. Meanwhile, Pakistan has consequently become surrounded by an increasingly dysfunctional economy and an ever more controversial political order.
To make matters worse, ahead of the next parliamentary elections, which must be held in less than a year from now, the PPP will find itself surrounded by ever-growing challenges on the streets of Pakistan. Ever-growing public protests on matters ranging from unemployment to widespread shortage of electricity have only knocked down whatever little credibility the government had to begin with.
Surrounded by increasingly untenable conditions on the streets of Pakistan, any ruling structure would have immediately sought to make amends with an entity as influential as the Supreme Court by accepting the outcome of court cases, rather than politicising them or defying them.
As Pakistan’s ruling politicians clearly position themselves for what could be a deadlock with the Supreme Court, mainstream Pakistan continues to suffer.
Pakistan’s future outlook will just not improve as long as its leaders continue to tie themselves in tangles with the Supreme Court.
The case against Justice Chaudhry’s son must be vigorously pursued to ensure a transparent investigation. But using that case as a way to tarnish the image of the judiciary is neither fair, nor in the best interest of the country.

n    The writer is a political and economic analyst. This article has been reproduced
    from  the Gulf News.