Judicialization Of Political Conflict Is A Threat To Institutional Harmony In Pakistan

Essay

(The Essay is not Complete: would be provided complete on demand)

The term "judicialization of political conflict" describes the growing involvement of the judiciary in resolving political disputes and conflicts between various factions and institutions of the state in Pakistan. This phenomenon has been evident in the country for several decades, particularly since the late 1990s, which saw a series of political crises culminating in the overthrow of civilian governments by the military. As the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, emphasized the importance of a strong and independent judiciary in ensuring the stability and prosperity of the nation: "The independence of the judiciary is the sheet anchor of our liberties, and without it, our justice will be a mockery."

I. Introduction

A. Explanation of the concept of judicialization of political conflict

B. Brief overview of the political landscape in Pakistan

C. Thesis statement: The increasing role of the judiciary in resolving political conflicts is a threat to institutional harmony in Pakistan.

 

II. Historical context

A. Pakistan's history of political instability and military rule

B. Weak democratic institutions and non-institutional means of resolving political conflicts

C. Emergence of a powerful and independent judiciary

 

III. Role of the judiciary

A. Examples of judicial intervention in political matters

B. Challenges faced by the judiciary in resolving political conflicts

C. Impact of judicial decisions on institutional harmony

 

IV. Weakness of political institutions

A. Failure of political institutions to resolve conflicts on their own

B. Overreliance on the judiciary to intervene in political matters

C. Consequences of weak political institutions for institutional harmony

 

V. Policing and law enforcement

A. Partisanship and lack of public trust in law enforcement agencies

B. Role of law enforcement agencies in exacerbating political conflicts

C. Impact of law enforcement on institutional harmony

 

VI. Political polarization

A. Deep divisions and lack of compromise among political parties and institutions

B. Overreliance on the judiciary to resolve disputes

C. Impact of political polarization on institutional harmony

 

VII. Conclusion

A. Restate thesis

B. Summary of main points

C. Implications of judicialization of political conflict for institutional harmony in Pakistan

 

I.                   Introduction

 

Over the last few decades, the judiciary's growing involvement in resolving political conflicts has become a notable aspect of Pakistan's political environment. Termed as the "judicialization of political conflict," this development can be attributed to a history of political instability, feeble democratic institutions, and the inability of political factions to resolve disagreements through non-institutional methods. This has resulted in the judiciary emerging as a potent and autonomous institution with the authority to hold other branches of the government accountable. Nonetheless, this trend has raised apprehensions regarding its impact on institutional harmony in Pakistan. Hence, this essay posits that the judicialization of political conflict poses a danger to institutional harmony in Pakistan.

 

a)    Explanation of the concept of judicialization of political conflict

The concept of judicialization of political conflict refers to the heightened involvement of the judiciary in resolving political disputes and conflicts among different factions and state institutions. This phenomenon entails the judiciary's intervention in political matters that were once considered beyond its purview. Such interventions include, but are not limited to, interpreting the constitution, adjudicating the legitimacy of government actions, arbitrating electoral disputes, and even hearing cases involving accusations of misconduct and corruption against elected officials.

 

The judicialization of political conflict can be traced back to the inability of other branches of government to resolve disputes through non-institutional methods. Political factions often find themselves at an impasse, unable to reach a negotiated settlement, and thus resort to seeking the judiciary's intervention. Moreover, the weak democratic institutions, political polarization, and a lack of trust in law enforcement agencies have further bolstered the judiciary's increased role in political matters.

 

While the judicialization of political conflict may provide a means to resolve disputes, it raises some pressing challenges and concerns. The growing dependence on the judiciary to intervene in political affairs risks undermining the legitimacy of other branches of government, including the executive and legislative branches. It may also lead to the politicization of the judiciary, casting doubts on its accountability and independence. Overall, the judicialization of political conflict is a multifaceted and fluid phenomenon, which holds both favorable and unfavorable implications for institutional harmony in Pakistan.

 

b)    Brief Overview of the political landscape in Pakistan

Pakistan's political landscape is marked by a complex and dynamic interplay of various forces and factors. The country's political history has been characterized by periods of military rule, political instability, and democratic transitions.

Pakistan's political system is based on a federal parliamentary system, with the President serving as the head of state, and the Prime Minister as the head of government. The legislative branch consists of the National Assembly (lower house) and the Senate (upper house).

The country has a multi-party system, with major political parties including the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). However, political parties in Pakistan are often marked by factionalism and infighting, which can lead to instability and fragmentation of political power.

Pakistan has also struggled with issues of corruption, sectarianism, terrorism, and regionalism, which have further complicated the country's political landscape. These challenges have often resulted in political tensions, violence, and a lack of trust in government institutions.

Overall, Pakistan's political landscape is marked by a complex interplay of various social, economic, and political factors that continue to shape the country's trajectory.

c)     Thesis Statement

There are several case studies that illustrate how the increasing role of the judiciary in resolving political conflicts is a threat to institutional harmony in Pakistan. Here are a few examples:

Disqualification of elected officials: In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualified then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office due to corruption charges. This decision was met with both support and criticism, but it highlighted the power of the judiciary to remove elected officials from office. Such decisions can create political instability and undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process, as the judiciary can be seen as intervening in political matters beyond its mandate.

Ongoing political trials: The judiciary in Pakistan has been involved in a number of high-profile political trials in recent years, such as the trial of former President Pervez Musharraf for treason and the trial of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's alleged assassins. These trials can be seen as politically motivated, and their outcomes have the potential to further polarize political factions and undermine institutional harmony.

Interpretation of the constitution: The judiciary in Pakistan has played a significant role in interpreting the constitution and determining the scope of the powers of different branches of government. However, these interpretations can be contested and can lead to further political conflict. For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court disqualified Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen from holding public office for life, citing a provision in the constitution that disqualifies individuals for not disclosing assets.

Political polarization: The judicialization of political conflict can also exacerbate political polarization in Pakistan. When political factions are unable to reach a compromise through negotiation, they may seek the intervention of the judiciary. However, this can further polarize political factions, as decisions made by the judiciary can be seen as favoring one side over the other.

These case studies demonstrate how the increasing role of the judiciary in resolving political conflicts can pose a threat to institutional harmony in Pakistan. While the judiciary can play a vital role in ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law, its intervention in political matters beyond its mandate can create further political conflict and undermine the legitimacy of other branches of government.

II.               Historical Context

To understand the increasing role of the judiciary in resolving political conflicts in Pakistan and its impact on institutional harmony, it is important to consider the historical context of the country.

 

Pakistan gained independence from British rule in 1947, but its political history has been marked by a series of coups, military dictatorships, and political instability. Since its independence, Pakistan has struggled to establish stable democratic institutions, and its political landscape has been characterized by frequent power struggles between the civilian government and the military.

The late 1990s saw a particularly turbulent period in Pakistan's political history. In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a military coup, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This marked the fourth military coup in Pakistan's history, and it led to a period of political turmoil and instability.

During this period, the judiciary in Pakistan played a crucial role in challenging the military regime and upholding democratic values. In 2007, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was suspended by General Musharraf, leading to widespread protests and a movement for the restoration of the judiciary. This movement culminated in the restoration of Chief Justice Chaudhry and other judges who had been removed by the military regime.

Since then, the judiciary in Pakistan has emerged as a powerful and independent institution, with the ability to hold other branches of government accountable. However, its increasing role in resolving political conflicts has also raised concerns about its impact on institutional harmony in the country.

In summary, Pakistan's history of political instability and military rule has created a context in which the judiciary has played an increasingly important role in resolving political conflicts. While the judiciary has been seen as a defender of democratic values and the rule of law, its intervention in political matters beyond its mandate has also created challenges for institutional harmony in the country.

////

…

a)    Pakistan's history of political instability and military rule

Pakistan has a long history of political instability and military rule. After gaining independence from British rule in 1947, the country struggled to establish stable democratic institutions, and its political landscape has been characterized by frequent power struggles between the civilian government and the military.

The country's first military coup took place in 1958, when General Ayub Khan overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Feroz Khan Noon. Ayub Khan established martial law and ruled the country for the next decade, until he was forced to resign in 1969 after facing widespread protests.

In 1971, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) declared independence from West Pakistan, following a bloody civil war. This led to a period of political turmoil and instability, with various political parties vying for power.

In 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq seized power in a military coup, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Zia-ul-Haq ruled the country for the next 11 years, during which time he imposed martial law and introduced a series of controversial Islamic laws.

In 1988, Zia-ul-Haq died in a plane crash, and the military handed power back to a civilian government. However, political instability and corruption continued to plague the country, and in 1999, General Pervez Musharraf seized power in another military coup, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Since then, Pakistan has experienced a period of political turmoil and instability, with the civilian government and the military vying for power. This has created a context in which the judiciary has played an increasingly important role in resolving political conflicts, as noted earlier.

b)    Weak democratic institutions and non-institutional means of resolving political conflicts

 

How oft have we witnessed the frailty of democratic institutions, with feeble limbs that struggle to uphold the weight of the state! Forsooth, the history of Pakistan is replete with instances of political instability, marked by the ebb and flow of democratic regimes and military rule. In such an environment, the resolution of political conflicts through non-institutional means doth breed strife and chaos, and lead us down a path of dire consequences.

Verily, the weakness of democratic institutions lies at the heart of this malaise. The absence of a robust and independent judiciary, a free press, and an accountable executive has left the political landscape vulnerable to the whims of vested interests and the machinations of power brokers. As a result, political factions are often unable to reach a compromise through negotiation, and instead resort to extra-constitutional means to pursue their agenda. This is a lamentable state of affairs, for it undermines the very foundations of democracy and the rule of law.

In Pakistan, the legacy of military rule has further compounded this problem. The military, with its long history of intervention in politics, has often acted as a destabilizing force, intervening in the political process and undermining the democratic institutions of the state. The military has also been accused of using non-institutional means to resolve political conflicts, such as the imposition of martial law, the suppression of dissent, and the curtailing of civil liberties.

It is in this context that the role of the judiciary assumes critical importance. A strong and independent judiciary can act as a check on the excesses of the executive and legislative branches of government, and ensure that the rule of law is upheld. However, in Pakistan, the judiciary has also been accused of overstepping its bounds, and becoming embroiled in political controversies that go beyond its constitutional mandate. This has led to concerns about the politicization of the judiciary, and the erosion of its independence and credibility.

In conclusion, the weakness of democratic institutions and the resort to non-institutional means to resolve political conflicts is a scourge that has plagued Pakistan for too long. It is imperative that the country takes steps to strengthen its democratic institutions, and ensure that they are able to discharge their constitutional duties with independence and impartiality. The judiciary, in particular, must be insulated from political pressures, and be allowed to perform its role as a guardian of the constitution and the rule of law. Only then can Pakistan hope to achieve the institutional harmony that is necessary for its progress and prosperity.

c)     Emergence of a powerful and independent judiciary

A powerful judiciary refers to a judicial system that has significant authority and influence in a country's political and legal system. In such a system, the judiciary is independent and impartial, with the ability to interpret and apply the law, and even to hold other branches of government accountable. A powerful judiciary is often seen as a critical component of a democratic society, as it provides a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches and helps to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

In countries with a powerful judiciary, the courts are often the final arbiters of disputes between citizens, businesses, and government entities. This includes interpreting the constitution, ruling on the legality of government actions, and even hearing cases involving allegations of corruption and misconduct against elected officials. A strong judiciary can also help to ensure that citizens' rights are protected and that the government is held accountable for its actions.

 

However, the concept of a powerful judiciary can also be controversial. Some argue that a judiciary with too much power can undermine the authority of elected officials and the democratic process. Others argue that a powerful judiciary can become politicized, leading to decisions that are based on personal or political bias rather than on the law.

In the context of Pakistan, the judiciary has emerged as a powerful institution due to the country's history of political instability and weak democratic institutions. The increasing role of the judiciary in resolving political conflicts has been seen as both a positive development and a cause for concern. While the judiciary has played a critical role in holding other branches of government accountable and ensuring that citizens' rights are protected, its increasing power and influence have also raised questions about the balance of power between different branches of government and the potential for the politicization of the judiciary.

In considering the emergence of a powerful and independent judiciary in Pakistan, we must first examine the historical and social contexts that have given rise to this phenomenon. Like the physical laws of the universe, the evolution of judicial power in Pakistan is subject to the forces of history and social dynamics.

Pakistan, since its inception, has faced a number of challenges that have affected the development of its democratic institutions. The military has been a dominant force in the country's politics for much of its history, and the judiciary has often been subservient to its will. However, in recent years, the judiciary has emerged as a powerful and independent institution that has the ability to hold other branches of the government accountable.

The judiciary's newfound power and independence can be attributed to several factors. First, the rise of civil society in Pakistan has created a demand for an independent judiciary that can serve as a check on the power of the state. Second, the judiciary has been strengthened by a number of constitutional reforms that have expanded its powers and provided it with greater autonomy. Third, the judiciary has been emboldened by a series of landmark judgments that have demonstrated its willingness to take on powerful interests, including the military and political elite.

One of the most significant examples of the judiciary's power was the decision to disqualify former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office in 2017. This decision sent shockwaves through the political establishment, and it demonstrated the judiciary's willingness to hold even the most powerful political figures accountable. In another landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the military must answer for its actions during the Balochistan crisis, a move that challenged the military's long-standing immunity from accountability.

However, the judiciary's newfound power has also raised concerns about its impact on institutional harmony in Pakistan. Some argue that the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and has become overly politicized. Others worry that the judiciary's activism could undermine the legitimacy of other branches of the government.

In order to strike a balance between accountability and institutional harmony, it is important for the judiciary to exercise its power responsibly and with restraint. It is equally important for other branches of the government to respect the judiciary's independence and to work collaboratively with it to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan.

In conclusion, the emergence of a powerful and independent judiciary in Pakistan is a complex and evolving phenomenon that reflects the country's struggles with democracy and governance. While the judiciary's newfound power has the potential to improve accountability and strengthen democratic institutions, it also poses risks to institutional harmony if not exercised responsibly. As the great physicist Albert Einstein once said, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." In a similar vein, the emergence of a powerful judiciary in Pakistan has the potential to change everything, and we must think carefully about how to navigate these changes in a way that promotes stability and progress.