A Common Rhetoric: Musharraf, America, and the Supreme Court

    President Musharraf of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instituted martial law citing the threat of terrorism, civil unrest, and judicial activism. Echoing the concerns that have occupied recent American political sloganeering related to terrorism, few have stopped to consider his claim about the judiciary. I shall point out how Musharraf’s rhetoric about judicial activism is not far from Bush’s.

    It has been commonly held that Musharraf dismissed Pakistan’s Supreme Court judges fearing an impending ruling that would invalidate his reelection bid. It is widely understood, however, that the judiciary should provide an oversight of laws made by the executive branch by reference to both the highest principles of the land, enshrined in the constitution, and in a manner that accommodates realities of the times. It is a game of interpretation, where the intentions of the authors of the constitution must be supreme.

    The historical role the judiciary has played highlights its role as a vehicle of social change. In America, women’s right to abortion came by the writ of the court as did the desegregation of the school system. The reason for the courts’ progressive role is not hard to discern. Politicians often pander to the masses to garner electoral votes, which constrains their ability to champion policy that promotes rights of the oppressed.

    It is little surprise that right-wing politicians feel frustration, nay exasperation, with the courts. The right wing finds it difficult to understand the fundamental roles the courts play in civil society. In fact, Bush has often spoken of how he does not want activist judges, who are trying to “make the law”. Part of Bush’s electoral platform was to elect judges to the supreme court that will not be “activist”.

    The idea of being an “activist” judge is a way to slander and depreciate the role of the judiciary in a civil society. Rightly or wrongly, the concept of an activist, brings with it the image of a renegade. Yet it appears that the tussle between the executive and judicial branches of government threaten the very basis of civil society.

    The Bush administration was embarrassed that Pakistan, a key ally in their war on terror, is reverting to a dictatorship with theocratic influences. Bush can take little pleasure, however, that Musharraf is on his side in more ways than one.