Pakistan caves on judges
posted at 12:21 pm on March 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Pakistan’s president announced that the government would restore a former Supreme Court justice removed by Pervez Musharraf in order to quell protests that have grown in intensity in the last few days. The move is widely seen as a retreat for Asif Ali Zardari and a victory for the Islamists, and once again calls into question the stability of the year-old civilian government in Islamabad:
Unable to crush street protests Sunday that spilled out of this city and threatened to reach the capital, the Pakistani government announced early Monday morning that it would restore the former chief justice of the Supreme Court and a group of other deposed judges in a major capitulation to opponents.
The move reflected the weakening position of President Asif Ali Zardari, a key U.S. ally, but it also signaled a peaceful end to a mounting political crisis in the nuclear-armed Muslim nation of 172 million. Zardari had resisted bringing back former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry for months, but he faced mounting pressure from a broad coalition of opponents who demanded the reinstatement of Pakistan’s independent judiciary and threatened to march on the capital, Islamabad, until Chaudhry was brought back.
The decision marked an extraordinary victory for Pakistan’s legal community, which has been agitating peacefully for the judges’ reinstatement for the past two years, and for Zardari’s major political rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who joined the lawyers’ crusade last month and quickly became its most forceful advocate.
The US immediately hailed the move as a step in the right direction:
The U.S. government, which had been pressing Zardari and Sharif to find a peaceful way out of the crisis, immediately welcomed the move. In a statement, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad called Gillani’s announcement “statesmanlike” and a “substantial step towards national reconciliation.”
Chaudhry got canned by Musharraf for refusing to take an oath to the constitution that Musharraf had amended in a bid to continue his rule under the guise of democracy. When Musharraf finally stepped aside and Zardari took the post, Nawaz Sharif and his allies immediately began pressing for Chaudhry’s reinstatement, as well as a number of other lawyers summarily dismissed. Islamists took up the cause as a way to undermine the authority of the elected government, but until recently had gained little traction on the issue.
Now, however, Sharif and his Islamist allies have created chaos in Pakistan. Sharif has until now been blocked from participating as a candidate in elections, thanks to convictions on corruption charges during Musharraf’s reign. Instead, he has become the leader of a growing opposition determined to deliver a knockout blow to the moderate governing coalition of Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Gilani. Sharif has sided with the Islamists in opposing Pakistan’s fight against the Taliban and other terrorist elements, and the growth of his popularity should cause great concern in Washington DC and NATO circles.
Zardari, meanwhile, may be on his way out. In Punjab, police withdrew from the streets and the Post reports that government officials have begun resigning their posts. If Zardari cannot control the security forces of Pakistan, he may not last much longer — and given the options in replacements, that’s not a good sign.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Heckuva job, Condi, getting Musharref to stand down and hold elections. Even smarter than leaning on Israel to hold elections in Gaza.
Wethal on March 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Does anyone else think that screen cap looks like an Al Gore photoshop?
BadgerHawk on March 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Good grief! Rampaging lawyers.
Mason on March 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
We should have treated Pakistan like Iraq from the beginning. Nuclear power or not, they are not stable enough to form international treaties under a single central authority. If we’d just allow India to clean up the mess the way only India could or would, we would be just fine.
ThackerAgency on March 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Come on we saw this coming, they are on the CIA watch list along with Mexico to our south. So what does the CIA think is the next course to take?
Dr Evil on March 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Hoo boy, we’re about to see what a failed nuclear state looks like. Start girding your loins.
rbj on March 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Biden Challenge!
Kid from Brooklyn on March 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Yeah, mullahs with nukes!
myrenovations on March 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM
We need someone with a spine of steel to manage this brewing crisis.
Bishop on March 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
‘Pakistan caves’?
faraway on March 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
It’s getting hard to know which mishandled crises Biden meant..
the_nile on March 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Shudder…
Tzetzes on March 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Right, I had the same reaction.
Next: Pakistan judges from caves!
DrSteve on March 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Meh….as is the normal cycle for the past half century Pakistan gets chaotic while mimicking democratic concepts while implementing corruption…then the Army takes over and promises to return power to the people in 5 or 6 years. It’s like the tides.
They are Muslim.
BL@KBIRD on March 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Who cares? I’m going for the broader meaning…that The One will get punked early and often.
They are what we thought they were…and we let ‘em off the hook!
Kid from Brooklyn on March 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
The U.S. government declared “substantial step towards national reconciliation.” I guess we have to say that but still Pathetic.
These troglodytes are as much “judges” and Al Sharpton is a Reverend. They are essentially unaccountable and ungovernable and it is just a facade to hide behind while they consolidate power.
LincolntheHun on March 16, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Ed.
Why is this a victory for “islamists” ?
There is nothing in your quotes to support this so I am forced to read the original article to answer the question … this had better be good ;-).
gh on March 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM
0-Bama was the One that they (Islam, Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.) were waiting for….
dmh0667 on March 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Ed. This is the secular opposition. You really need to be more careful with your editorials. Washington is worried about the army, not islamists.
gh on March 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM
My thoughts exactly. The judge being reinstated was thrown out by Musharraf for not letting him be another Saddam Hussein. For someone who followed that news pretty closely, the protests then (and the recent protests too) are about reinstating a judge who refused amendments to the constitution to let Musharraf be the autocrat he was. I believe Zardari did a backdoor deal with Musharraf to not reinstate this judge, and now he is being forced to back off from it. Which is goodness all around (as opposed to radical Islam).
peter_griffin on March 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM
“…no, no, not the nuke button you silly Mullah!! The new ‘reset’ button!!
DamnYankee on March 16, 2009 at 1:34 PM
A collapse is better than a Collapse.
pseudonominus on March 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM
That’s one of the funniest comments ever.
gh on March 16, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Under Pakistani law, the judges swear allegiance to the Presidency, and serve at the will of the Pakistani President.
coldwarrior on March 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM
The forcing of Zardawi to concede and backstep on a matter that lies within his exclusive perogotive (see Coldwarrior above) weakens him, and when done at the behest of screaming Islamists, strengthens them. That analysis needn’t be in the article (gh) for Ed to make it himself.
Maquis on March 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I disagree. This judge is a completely religion agnostic figure, he was thrown out because Musharraf wanted to modify the constitution *illegally*, and IMHO he should have been reinstated long back. Those claiming for his reinstatement are *secular* as opposed to screaming radicals. The difference is crucial since it was a similar difference that helped Gen P’s strategy in Iraq (fundamentalists v/s moderates).
peter_griffin on March 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
It was not at “the behest of screaming islamists”.
It was a coalition of all the opposition groups:
[end of page 2]
Only Jamaat-i-Islami, in that list is “islamist” but they are not the islamists referenced here [page 1]:
If you check jamaat-i-islami on wikipedia you will read:
They are an old party whose interest lies in Kashmir. The “islamist insurgency” refers to the Taleban, who are Pashtun.
gh on March 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
The judge became a useful tool for all the discontents, regardless of how one defines Islamists. Personally, I think Zardawi injured himself by not reinstating him immediately and allowing it to fester and become the weapon it has.
As far as the peaceful proclamations of any Islamist society, particularly one intent on reclaiming contested territory, well, believe such if you will, but I won’t.
Maquis on March 16, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Sure. But that is all traditional pakistani politics.
The problem I was pointing out is that Ed misread the story. The picture of burning tires is misleading but burning tires is common in “third world” protests.
gh on March 16, 2009 at 9:06 PM