Good Governance in Pakistan: A Nightmare Scenario

1-Cases of Mulvi Tameez-ud-din Khan case 1954

The "Objectives Resolution case," also known as the Mulvi Tameez-ud-din Khan case,
occurred in Pakistan in 1954. This case is notable since it occurred during a pivotal time in
Pakistan's history. The evolution of the nation's political system and constitution.
The Objectives Resolution was adopted by Pakistan's Constituent Assembly in 1949, which
led to the development of the case. The resolution attempted to establish the goals and
guiding ideals for Pakistan's future constitution. The decision, however, caused a lot of
controversies, and several Muslim academics and leaders disapproved of it, saying that it
went against Islamic law and ethics.
A petition questioning the resolution's legality was submitted by the famous religious figure
and National Assembly member Mulvi Tameez-ud-din Khan. He said that the resolution
infringed the rights of Muslims in Pakistan since it went counter to the core tenets of Islam
and the Quran.
The Pakistan Federal Court heard the case, and the justices had to determine whether or not
the Objectives Resolution constituted an official component of the constitution. In the end,
the judges supported the resolution's legitimacy, concluding that it did not conflict with Islam
and did not infringe upon Muslims' rights.
In Pakistan's political and constitutional history, the Mulvi Tameez-ud-din Khan case has
been hotly contested, with some claiming it was a triumph for secularism and others claiming
it was a failure. Some hailed it as a victory for democracy, while others saw it as a blow to
Islamic ideals and principles.
It is impossible to say that the Mulvi Tameez-ud-din Khan case demonstrates ill governance
in Pakistan when it comes to the issue of bad governance. Instead, the case serves to
demonstrate the difficulties in drafting a constitution that is both representative of the nation's
religious and cultural diversity and compliant with contemporary democratic ideals.
In the end, the Mulvi Tameez-ud-din Khan case had a significant impact on Pakistan's
political and constitutional environment. It helped define the relationship between Islam and
the state in Pakistan and established a precedent for subsequent legal proceedings.
2-State v. Dosso 1958
Pakistan, which was a member of the British Commonwealth at the time, was the location of
the 1958 case State v. Dosso. The case included a test of the lawfulness of the tactical upset
that had taken place in the country in 1958. The petitioner argued that the resulting
government was illegitimate and that the coup violated the Constitution.
However, the Pakistani Supreme Court ruled that it lacked the authority to examine the
legitimacy of the coup. The court decided that the military was the de facto government and
that its decisions were binding because they had taken power. The court also noted that the
public had generally accepted the coup and that the previous administration had been corrupt
and ineffective.
Some have argued that the Dosso case sets a troubling precedent for permitting military
takeovers and undermining the rule of law. Others have defended the decision, arguing that it
was necessary to keep the country's political and economic stability intact.
The Dosso case and the current situation in Pakistan are difficult to directly compare.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Pakistan has a history of political instability and
military coups, indicating that there may be underlying governance issues. Corruption, weak
institutions, and a lack of accountability are some of these problems.
Several indicators indicate that Pakistan's governance needs improvement. High levels of
corruption, a weak rule of law, and a lack of accountability and transparency in government
institutions are just a few examples. Additionally, the general public is dissatisfied with the
government's performance.
The Pakistani government will need to implement significant reforms to address these issues.
A commitment to strengthening institutions, increasing accountability and transparency, and
reducing corruption will be necessary for this. Civil society and the international community
will also need to be involved and supportive. In the end, a consistent effort to address the
underlying causes of Pakistan's instability and ensure that the country's institutions are robust,
efficient, and responsive to the needs of the people will be the key to improving governance.
3-Asma Gilani v. Government of Punjab 1972
In 1972, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan made a significant decision in the case of Asma
Gilani v. Government of Punjab. Asma Gilani, a political activist who had been detained
without due process by the Punjab government, was the subject of the case.
Because it brought to light the problem of poor governance in Pakistan at the time, the case
was significant. The court's decision to release Gilani was viewed as a victory for the rule of
law because the government's actions, in this case, were a clear violation of her fundamental
rights.
This case's background can be traced back to Pakistan's turbulent political climate in the
1970s. The country had just experienced a military coup, and the new government was
stifling political opposition. During this time, the government had its sights set on several
activists, including Asma Gilani.
In supporting its choice, the Lahore High Court highlighted the public authority's dismissal of
dueprocess and law and order. The court ordered Gilani's immediate release after concluding
that her detention was unconstitutional.
This case is a clear illustration of poor governance at the time in Pakistan. The government's
actions were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of its citizens' fundamental rights.
The decision of the court was a significant step toward holding the government accountable
for its actions and maintaining the rule of law.
The court's ability to take such a firm stance against the government, in this case,
demonstrates that bad governance existed in Pakistan at the time. The court was compelled to
take action to safeguard the rights of its citizens because the government's actions were so
appalling that they could not be ignored.
Generally, the instance of Asma Gilani v. Legislature of Punjab in 1972 is a strong sign of the
significance of law and order and the requirement for good administration in Pakistan. It
shows that even in troublesome times, the courts can go about as a rampart against
bureaucratic power grabbing and safeguard the privileges of individuals.
4-Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs. Chief of Army Staff and Federation of Pakistan 1977
The landmark 1977 case of Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff and Federation of
Pakistan was a turning point in Pakistani history. Begum Nusrat Bhutto was the wife of
Pakistan's former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was overthrown by General Zia-
ul-Haq in a military coup in 1977.
Begum Nusrat Bhutto had requested her husband's release and filed a writ petition in the
Lahore High Court to contest his detention. She contended that her significant other's
confinement was unlawful and unlawful, as it was not approved by any regulation and
disregarded his basic privileges.
Begum Nusrat Bhutto filed an appeal with the Supreme Court after the petition was denied by
the Lahore High Court. The High Court heard the case and maintained the Lahore High
Court's choice, expressing that the public authority could keep people under the Upkeep of
Public Request (MPO) law.
The case was critical as it denoted the start of General Zia-ul-Haq's tyrant system, what's
more, his crackdown on the political dispute. The actions of the military regime were widely
criticized as undemocratic and in violation of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
Because the military regime had restricted civil liberties and violated citizens' fundamental
rights, the case can be seen as an illustration of bad governance. Most people thought that
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's detention and the subsequent legal proceedings were unfair and
political.
The case emphasizes the significance of constitutionalism and the rule of law in ensuring
efficient administration. Public outrage and a loss of faith in the government can result from
the government's violation of fundamental rights and abuse of power. To ensure good
governance, this case serves as a reminder that governments must respect the rule of law and
citizens' fundamental rights.
5-Be-nazir Bhutto vs Federation of Pakistan 1988
In 1988, Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan case was a turning point in its
history. In November 1988, Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP),
won the elections and was appointed Pakistan's first Prime Minister.
However, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed her government within two years, citing
mismanagement and corruption.
In Pakistan's Supreme Court, Bhutto challenged the President's decision, arguing that her
government's dismissal violated the Constitution and the democratic rights of Pakistanis. The
President's decision was deemed invalid by the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor.
The case demonstrates the difficulties democratic governments in Pakistan face as well as the
power struggle between the executive and judiciary. It also emphasizes the judiciary's role in
upholding the constitution's democratic principles.
Bad governance in Pakistan is not necessarily justified by the case. Even though Bhutto's
government was fired because of corruption and bad management, the case also shows how
important it is to follow constitutional rules and follow the law when dealing with such
issues.
The fact that Bhutto was able to win her court challenge to her dismissal demonstrates that
Pakistan's constitution and judicial system are powerful institutions that can hold the
government accountable. However, the fact that her government was removed in the first
place suggests that the country must address problems with democracy and good governance.
In general, the instance of Benazir Bhutto versus the Alliance of Pakistan highlights the
significance of maintaining law and order and established standards in guaranteeing majority
rule administration in Pakistan.
6-Military takeover by general Musharaf in 1999
In Pakistan's history, the military takeover by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999 was
significant. Pakistan was experiencing political unrest, economic instability, and rising social
tensions at the time. The Chief of Army Staff at the time, Musharraf, declared a state of
emergency and suspended the constitution, effectively assuming control of the government.
Musharraf cited the mismanagement and corruption of the elected government of Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif as reasons for the military's takeover. He promised to address
Pakistan's challenges, enhance governance, and restore stability.
Modernizing the economy, enhancing infrastructure, and combating extremism were just a
few of the reforms implemented by Musharraf's military regime. However, during his tenure,
there were also allegations of violations of human rights, media censorship, and the
suppression of political dissent. It is impossible to justify the military takeover as democratic
or good governance.
A clear violation of democratic principles and the rule of law occurred with the suspension of
the constitution and the removal of the elected government. A military takeover was not the
right solution, even though mismanagement and corruption were significant issues in
Pakistan at the time.
The fragility of Pakistan's democratic institutions was also demonstrated by the suspension of
the constitution and the undermining of the democratic process. Public dissatisfaction and
disillusionment with the democratic process resulted from elected governments' inability to
address the country's challenges, which in turn created an atmosphere favorable to military
intervention.
In general, the military takeover of Pakistan by General Musharraf in 1999 demonstrates how
crucial it is to uphold the rule of law, promote good governance, and strengthen Pakistan's
democratic institutions. The fact that military intervention was seen as a viable solution to the
country's problems emphasizes the need for increased public participation in the political
process, transparency, and accountability.
7-NRO In 2007 between Pervez Musharaf
Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president at the time, issued the National Reconciliation
Ordinance (NRO) in 2007. In the 1990s, politicians and bureaucrats who had been accused of
corruption, embezzlement, and other white-collar offenses sought amnesty from the NRO.
Additionally, the ordinance sought to facilitate the return of politicians who had been exiled,
such as former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
There was a lot of debate about the NRO, and many people said that Musharraf was using it
to protect his allies and keep his power. The ordinance's critics argued that it strengthened
Pakistan's culture of impunity and undermined the rule of law. In 2009, the Supreme Court of
Pakistan ruled that the NRO was illegal and unconstitutional after it was challenged in court.
The controversy over the NRO brings to light broader issues with Pakistan's governance.
Corruption and political instability have plagued the nation for a long time, and it has a weak
civilian government and frequent military coups. Because it encouraged a climate of
impunity and made it possible for dishonest officials to avoid being held accountable, the
NRO can be considered an illustration of poor governance.
The public's and constitutional institutions' reactions to the NRO demonstrate a growing
demand for government transparency and accountability. The Supreme Court's decision to
declare the NRO unconstitutional was regarded as a significant step toward combating
corruption in Pakistan and a victory for the rule of law.
In general, the NRO is a complicated issue that brings to light broader issues with Pakistan's
governance. The ordinance's controversial nature and eventual rejection by the Supreme
Court highlight the need for greater accountability and transparency in the country's political
system, even though its purpose was to foster reconciliation and stability.
8-Nawaz Sharif and Be-nazir Bhutto, Establishment of Military courts under the 21st
Constitutional Amendment (National Action Plan) in 2015
The cases of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, in addition to the 2015 establishment of
military courts as a result of the 21st Constitutional Amendment, are examples of Pakistan's
complex political turmoil and instability.
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both held multiple positions as Pakistan's Prime Minister
before they were controversially removed from office. In 1993 and 1999, Sharif was ousted,
while Bhutto was ousted in 1990 and 1996. During their time in office, both leaders were
accused of corruption and faced persecution from the military and intelligence agencies.
The National Action Plan, a counterterrorism strategy launched by the Pakistani government
in response to a wave of terrorist attacks in the country, included the establishment of military
courts under the 21st Constitutional Amendment. Initial plans called for the military courts to
operate for two years. Their purpose was to speed up and make the legal process for terrorism
cases more effective.
The military courts were criticized for violating citizens' fundamental rights and undermining
the independence of the judiciary. Additionally, there were concerns that the military courts
would not only used to prosecute terrorists but also political opponents and dissenters.
It is difficult to definitively determine whether the circumstances surrounding the cases of
Sharif and Bhutto and the establishment of military courts as a result of the 21st
Constitutional Amendment are indicative of poor governance in Pakistan. However, it is
abundantly clear that the nation has a long and illustrious history of political unrest and
corruption, and that the government has frequently had difficulty effectively addressing these
issues.
The fact that the constitution was changed to allow for military courts is a clear sign that the
legal system that was in place was not working as it should. In addition, the frequent removal
of democratically elected leaders suggests that the government lacks continuity and stability.
It is essential to strengthen Pakistan's democratic institutions, enhance transparency and
accountability, and promote the rule of law to address issues of poor governance. This will
necessitate ongoing efforts on the part of civil society and the government, as well as
international support and cooperation.