On September 8, 2022, Britain’s longest-serving monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, received her last beautiful kiss from the sun. Given her visibly deteriorating health and diminished public appearances, many may have known that the curtains were closing on her. Her son, King Charles III, too, ought to have seen it coming. Although the King took over the official duties as soon as the Queen closed her eyes, Operation Golden Arb’s plans to formally anoint, bless and crown him are still shrouded under secrecy.
Nevertheless, this smooth transition to the throne is undeniably alien to us; as is his patient thumb-twiddling, which is also unheard of in either our past or our present. The UK had already enacted a law titled ‘Succession to the Crown Act, 2013’ in preparation for this fateful event.
Without unearthing the buried demons of who did what to triumph in the game of thrones, the fracas, ongoing at all corners of our society, is sufficient to quiver any reasonable man. With changes in time, usually, blood is not shed anymore, but everything less than that is still considered fair and is very much at play.
The unprecedented move of releasing the complete audio of proceedings held at the Judicial Commission of Pakistan for the appointment of a judge at the apex court of the country is only another episode of such a conundrum.
Article 175A empowers the Commission to frame rules to regulate its procedure. Although there is a one-pager document titled ‘The Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules 2010’ however, the same fails to lay down any criteria on such a pivotal matter; or conceivably the Commission does not consider it worthy of their attention. It is interesting to note that even in the said one-pager documents, the Chairman of the Commission may relax the strict application of these rules in the greater interest of the public.
Resultantly, the Lordships cannot seem to agree upon the procedure for the appointment of judges at the Supreme Court. It is indeed perturbing; to say the least, especially when they have passed countless judgments stating that there is no concept of unfettered discretion in matters involving appointments and promotions.
The country’s arguably most disciplined institute is facing a somewhat similar issue. The previous federal government suffered humiliation when the issue of tenure extension was discussed before the Supreme Court. It transpired during the hearings that the ‘Pakistan Army Act 1952’, which as the name suggests relates to the army and the matters incidental thereto, is recklessly silent about the issue of re-appointment and extension of the Army Chief. Resultantly, a whole new chapter was added to the said law, through the ‘Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2020’ to clarify the issue of re-appointment and extension.
As of today, the President has the authority to re-appoint the army chief upon receiving recommendations from the Prime Minister. The only caveat to such reappointment or extension is that it has to be in the national security interest. Now, what constitutes ‘national security interest’, just like ‘public interest’ in the above-referred one-pager rules, is left to the wildest imagination of the reader.
The coming November promises to be a game changer for all. It is uncertain what the coming months will unfold. The lack of a yardstick begs the question of whether experience will take precedence over fresh blood. This vagueness regarding promotion, extension, and reappointment gives room to our politicians to arbitrarily question the patriotism and credibility of those in line.
It would be naive to believe that this absence of explicit laws is a result of inadvertence. Those in power may have deliberated carefully before leaving the void of legislation and objective criteria. After all, who would say no to such boundless supremacy whereby one can bless the blue-eyed, and bump away the unappreciative? What’s surprising is that even a bare perusal of past events shows that the chosen ones completely disregard those who handpicked them. Yet, we choose to expect a different result every time.
Returning to the subject of the British monarchy, the position of the king in the UK is as ceremonial as that of the president in Pakistan. We have witnessed that our presidents did not shy away from toeing their party line. It would be intriguing to see how King Charles III, who also enjoys notoriety for ‘meddling’ in government affairs, will restrain himself from doing so in the future. Nonetheless, it is impressive that even with such a reputation, no attempt was made to disqualify him for his anticipated role.
Although ironic, similar clarity in the appointment of party leaders could also discourage ‘unwarranted’ expectations of merit and competence within politics. Having an express rule of appointing the firstborn of the preceding party head would have saved somebody like Khawja Saad Rafiq from the embarrassing situation where he was asked why people like him were not considered to lead their parties. More so, people like Mir Murtaza Bhutto could still be alive if there was a clear roadmap toward the position of party head.
We have a political monarchy in our country, so we might as well confess and declare it so!