The Role of the Court in Pakistan’s Elections
By Jane Clark
October 5, 2007 | Printer Friendly

As reported on September 29, 2007 in the Washington Post, on September 28th the Pakistani Supreme Court announced that President Pervez Musharraf could run for reelection while holding dual positions as President and army chief.  Opponents had argued that his role as army chief should make him ineligible for reelection under the constitution, and they saw the Court “as the best hope… to end his eight-year rule.”    Lawyers have condemned the decision, while the government lawyers believe that it is a sound constitutional decision.  Musharraf will be permitted to hold onto his post and then give it up if he is reelected.   

As reported in the New York Times, the election will go ahead as planned on October 6, 2007 despite opponents’ attempts to delay it.  There is still a pending challenge against Musharraf’s eligibility, so the results will not be announced until the Court gives its final verdict.   While some lawyers view the decision to proceed with the elections as a setback for opponents, others believe that it is actually unfavorable for Musharraf, because the Court’s decision can still go either way.

According to an October 5, 2007 Washington Post article, Musharraf hopes to gain credibility for the election through a tentative agreement reached with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. He has signed a statement granting her amnesty from corruption charges, which frees the way for her to run for Prime Minister.  Bhutto’s party had recently threatened to step down from their parliamentary seats to protest Musharraf’s bid for reelection, but under the new agreement they will not.

In an article titled “Pakistan’s Courts,” Paula Newberg examines the current reelection debate in Pakistan in the context of the judicial system’s role in stabilizing the political situation and the challenges it faces when “rules, not law, run the state.”  Lawyers, activists, and citizens have been looking to the Courts to make democratic decisions.  However, the role of the Court in the country remains uncertain.  Constitutions are frequently rejected or changed, judges face pressure to be loyal to dictators, and the Court often finds itself providing cover for politicians.  Newberg writes that for the courts to serve in the role that the population craves, citizens and political leaders must learn to abide by its decisions.  She concludes that Musharraf’s ability to succeed as President “will depend on how much respect he gives to constitutionalism -- and the courts that guard it.”

References

Washington Post: Court Clears Musharraf to Run Again

New York Times: Pakistanis to Vote with Musharraf's Status in Doubt

Washington Post: Musharraf, Bhutto Reach Tentative Deal to Let Her Return with Amnesty

Newberg: Pakistan's Courts