PPP’s proposal

On a day when the CTD claimed to have eliminated a Lashkar-e-Jhangvi faction in Sindh, the PPP presented a counter-proposal on the matter of reviving military courts. The PPP’s proposals are apparently aimed to mitigate concerns over the opacity of the justice that military courts offer. But the step has ended up showing that the political leadership of the country has essentially given up on ensuring the democratic norm of justice being served with due process. The PPP has made a number of apparently reasonable demands for the military courts to follow. These include: presenting the charges in front of a regular court, allowing the accused lawyers of their choice, ensuring a regular judge sits in on the trial, and allowing a right to appeal in high courts. The party has also proposed limiting the increase in the term of the military courts to one-year. However, the party has failed to explain why it is ready to support them at all.

This is certainly a case of political expediency on the part of the PPP. It remains to be seen whether the party will be able to bring other political parties on board but the real issue lies elsewhere. The PPP’s apparently reasonable proposals are about leverage, not military courts. It has its own issues to bargain over; Zardari indicated as much in his press conference when he mentioned both Dr Asim Hussain and the special powers enjoyed by the Rangers in Sindh. The PPP’s civilian fig leaf has also distracted us from asking the real questions on military courts, which have been unable to meet the criterion of fair trials. The reality is that banned organisations continue to operate freely under new names. Individuals are still targeted by fatwas and there has been little – if any – implementation of the key clauses of NAP. We have seen extremism rising in everyday life in Pakistan. What we need is a clear effort to fix these underlying causes, instead of rewinding the clock on military courts – which cannot offer deterrence value to terrorists who are ready to die for their cause. Even the speediness of military courts remains under debate since most military court decisions are under review in the Supreme Court. The solution was always to follow up on the promise of judicial reform. Military courts had been presented as a temporary measure. Renewing them year after year gets us nowhere – and ultimately creates institutional trouble. Instead of debating how to reduce concerns about the revival of military courts, it may have been wiser for the political forces in the country to look at other options.