ON the face of it, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s remarks on Saturday that parliament cannot enact any law that is repugnant to the constitution, fundamental rights and Islamic provisions seems innocuous and uncontroversial — after all, few would argue that parliament’s right to legislate is unfettered. But the comments of the chief justice have come against a particular background. One, at no point has the present parliament attempted to legislate against what can be considered the basic features of the constitution. After the 18th Amendment, the Supreme Court did question the new procedure for appointment of superior court judges but legal opinion was divided on whether parliament had exceeded its mandate or not. Two, it is the activism of the court, which seemingly reached its apogee with the ouster of former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, that would appear to be the more immediate threat to the democratic order — not speculative acts by the government that may or may not occur. In the face of unprecedented activism by the court, the government has by and large remained unprovoked, even going so far as to accept the loss of one prime minister and then its first-choice replacement prime minister in a matter of days.
Crucial to the stability of the democratic order in the days ahead, then, may well be the choices the Supreme Court itself makes. The first test will be the fate of the new prime minister: will the court move to oust him too if he refuses to write the so-called Swiss letter, as is likely? Given that elections are now much closer than they were when the court reactivated the NRO issue in January, judicial restraint at this point in time may not necessarily be seen as a climbdown by a judiciary intent on carving out an equal space for itself alongside the traditional power centres in the country. However, if common sense is to prevail, the political temperature will have to be brought down first — and that would entail the judiciary following some of its own advice. As Chief Justice Chaudhry remarked on Saturday, “No one can claim supremacy over and above the law.” That is advice well worth reflecting on, for it is the court that seemed to make part of the constitution redundant by short-circuiting the disqualification process last week.
Finally, as whispers grow that some kind of quasi- or extra-constitutional arrangement is being contemplated in response to governance woes and in order to oust an unpopular government, the court, in line with its earlier commitment against such interventions, is expected to stand on only one side: that of the law and constitution.
Assembly abused
A NUMBER of fires were instigated and many houses burnt in the simmering land of Punjab in recent days. None too insignificantly, a hapless Speaker Rana Iqbal sat watching as his own grand House remained engulfed in flames of a different variety following the targeting of two PML-Q members of the assemblies by power rioters. The term ‘invective’ falls way short of capturing the essence of the ‘debate’ inside the Punjab Assembly where Rana Iqbal was ineffective in restoring some kind of order to the proceedings. If the speaker had moved swiftly, he may have prevented shoes, expletives and punches from flying around. Given the frequency with which this slinging game has been played in the Punjab Assembly, Rana Iqbal appears either too decent or too meek a man to be shepherding the current violent lot of MPAs.
The reality is that some of these rowdy episodes are predicted by assembly watchers much in advance. There is a feeling that politicians sitting in positions more responsible than the Punjab Assembly speaker have time and again failed this test in democracy, a system they swear by like parrots. In a country where politics is a centralised affair tightly controlled by individuals at the top of a party, the blame for such hooliganism as was witnessed in the Punjab Assembly last week must lie at the door of the heads of the parties that are represented in the assemblies. These ‘supremos’, as the term goes, have a greater role in ensuring a purposeful debate than would a party leader in a better-functioning democracy where codes of ethics have evolved to the satisfaction of most. It is said that practice will improve the conduct of the MPs in Pakistan. Until that happens, the lack of clear direction from the top to these oft-quarrelling lawmakers will feed suspicion that the routine ugly assembly scenes are more by design than by accident. The lawmakers are strongly suspected of employing these antics to get closer to the ‘supremos’. The accusers are vindicated when the ‘supremos’ select the filthiest tongues around for the duties of acting as their spokespersons.
Vanishing forests
ACCORDING to research conducted by conservation activists, mangroves have the highest rate of deforestation in the country. As per the study, Vanishing Riverine Forests of Sindh, details of which were published in this paper recently, forest cover in the country declined by 19 per cent between 1992 and 2001. It is indeed tragic that Pakistan has one of the highest deforestation rates in the world. The phenomenon is highest in the Indus delta region; one of the major factors contributing to deforestation in this area is the fact that not enough water is flowing in the Indus downstream Kotri. The ecological benefits mangroves provide are quite well known. These include protection against coastal flooding and erosion while the plants also act as barriers against storms and cyclones.
While dealing with some factors responsible for deforestation, such as climate change, is beyond human control, the state can surely focus on aspects that can be managed, such as over-exploitation of forests for wood. The research paper offers a number of solutions to stop this destructive process, such as a ban on conversion of forestland to other uses and the formulation of a forest management plan. Also, it is vital to involve and educate those communities living in or near forests on how to sustainably manage these valuable eco-regions. We must realise that if Pakistan’s forests continue to disappear at current rates, an environmental disaster is bound to strike, with desertification and increased flooding being possible outcomes. Thus, deforestation is an issue that affects the ecological stability of the country. If the mangroves and forests of other varieties continue to be chopped down, it will also have a negative effect on wildlife. It is still not too late to act; it is a matter of the official quarters displaying the will and inclination to preserve the country’s biodiversity.
