[DAWN] AFTER the judicial commission's decision in favour of Nawaz Sharif... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf...
and the 2013 caretakers, on the grounds of not proven guilty, it is time for political parties to move away from cliché-ridden rhetoric and concentrate on substantive issues related to electoral reform.
Before we examine the decision of the judicial commission of inquiry into the 2013 general election, it is necessary to examine the question whether the judiciary should at all be asked to decide political matters. Pakistain's political parties have often sought relief from the judiciary against political setbacks, because the grievance arose from a particular interpretation of the Constitution. The scope for discretion in interpreting the basic law, and what constitutes the national ideology or public interest, helped the judges to rule against the complainant-politicians, except for the 1994 restoration of the Nawaz Sharif government.
The judiciary's pro-establishment verdicts have had three unwelcome results. First, they have conferred legitimacy, partial at least, on extra-constitutional and usually indefensible political developments, eg, the Tamizuddin and Nusrat Bhutto cases. Secondly, such verdicts divide public opinion; selfish elements are ready to defend even outrageous formulations. And, thirdly, an adverse judicial opinion curtails the aggrieved party's capacity to agitate the issue further. Imran Khan
... aka
Taliban Khan, who is the lightweight's lightweight...
is the latest victim of all three consequences of seeking judicial relief in a political quarrel.