The destiny of this country’s democracy has once again come to a standstill, but unpropitiously, for a country like Pakistan which has never seen the democracy’s riches in its history, it becomes quite a challenge to fathom that it is in fact democracy, that should actually stand a chance in this country. But if this country has been bereft of democratic values, then rightly so, the constitution formulated to decide this country’s democratic fate, must question the dubious role of the judiciary also, other than the politicians and establishment, to halt the constitutional violations, throughout this country’s dark eras.
The Supreme Court during last week on Wednesday, has once again raked up its obscured role throughout the history that led this country to being a dystopian one, as it has annulled with nearly a unanimous majority of 5-1, its short order of declaring the military trials of 103 civilians, involved in purported 9 May riot, “unconstitutional”, which was previously decided on 23 October.
In all eventuality, our judiciary has been Pakistan’s most accentuated Achilles heel, the beneficiaries of which are no others than the establishment and our political leaders, having the untrammeled impunity for their undemocratic shortcuts.
The bedrock of the constitution beholds the civilian supremacy monumental, so the brazen decisions of justifying the military trials of civilians are unconstitutional by all means, and against the tenets of human rights as well. But with the apex court hanging the civilians out to dry along with the establishment, deploying the state machinery with virulence against the alleged victims of 9 May riots, the impression stands bright how this amalgam has politically engineered the non-democratic shortcuts from the raw.
To draw the parallels, what makes a military court so imperious over the ordinary civilian courts? Sparing the paucity of time, it’s the “speedy judicial redress” perhaps, as the history has witnessed the swift results of military trials being conducted, in record times. If the same trial comes to an ordinary civilian court, the plausibility of getting the result of a case nearly doesn’t seem holding water, such is nature of the justice for a common citizen in Pakistan and this has been the case throughout the history. Forget the primary gateways of justice system in Pakistan, that’s the session and district courts of this country, which are without even any proper staff, but the negligence is veneered for the echelons of judicial elites of this country. This is how access to justice is hampered for the ordinary people of this country. In all eventuality, our judiciary has been Pakistan’s most accentuated Achilles heel, the beneficiaries of which are no others than the establishment and our political leaders, having the untrammeled impunity for their undemocratic shortcuts.
Having military courts for the trials of civilians reflects nothing other than the peccadillos of our judicial system, which by all resources couldn’t conduct a fair trail for the alleged perpetrators in a speedy manner, ensuring the leeway of human rights. But the hiatus in our judiciary system doesn’t give room to replace it with the military one. Having a military trial for them is tantamount to an admission of guilt of committing crimes, at the behest of military trials with guaranteed convictions, as this theory of the military trial is deemed. With the trials being held, just before the elections, the plot looks to be nothing less than a political victimization, which has been the iteration of history’s rhyme, to yield power to trivialize the opponent, beyond one’s ultra vires. The Supreme Court’s decision is nothing more than the corroboration of the argument, without any further dissection that a patriot must endorse all facets of the military, even if it comes under the auspices of military courts.
Conceivably, it’s not the matter of military trails of 103 civilians only, it’s the issue of acumen and valiance of independent judiciary. The kernel of this debate is the decision to make, that what patterns of governance should this country covet for its progress. Should this be within the constitutional provisions of institutions, where law and order must have some credence for its citizens, where egalitarian society must be prevailed, or whether this country should be declared as a security state, where justice, politics, economy, all must come under the gamut of military? Justice should be served at all cost, but for the justice to be served, it is the civilian supremacy that should be assured. Demanding the civilian trials means that our civilian judiciary must pull its socks up to set a fair trial to decide the punishment of the alleged perpetrators, according to their crime. But nothing works like this in our country. So, in the end, all of this is just baying at moon!
