By: Qamar Bashir

Dr. Arif Alvi, the former President, possesses a wealth of attributes that make him a distinguished figure in the political arena.  In essence, Dr. Alvi embodies the qualities of an astute politician with a positive, creative, and non-violent approach to governance. Dr. Arif Alvi’s political journey began in 1979 with Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), where he opposed martial law under General Zia-ul-Haq. He later became a founding member of PTI in 1996, serving as its Sindh president. Despite navigating through General Pervez Musharraf’s martial law, he secured a National Assembly seat from Karachi in 2013 and won against MQM-P heavyweight Dr. Farooq Sattar in 2018. Known for his loyalty to Imran Khan, Alvi assumed the presidency in 2018, navigating Pakistan’s volatile political landscape effectively with a few hiccups here and there.

Having successfully completed his tenure as the supreme commander of the armed forces of Pakistan and head of all three pillars of the state, Dr. Alvi now faces a pivotal moment in his political career. With the leadership vacuum in PTI growing wider each passing day, exacerbated by the incarceration of its founding chairman, Mr. Imran Khan, the need for Alvi to assume an active role in the party has never been more apparent. Imran Khan’s likely prolonged detention underscores the urgency for Alvi to step up, especially as other key leaders of PTI find themselves either in jail or in hiding due to alleged state oppression. As PTI grapples with these unprecedented challenges, Alvi’s leadership and guidance could prove instrumental in navigating the party through turbulent times and charting a course towards stability and resilience.

PTI’s leadership is currently dominated by lawyers, often labeled as “paratroopers” by analysts. These individuals lack a political background and grassroots support, making them ill-equipped to handle the intricacies of political maneuvering effectively. Their tendency to resort to legal battles instead of leveraging popular support has been detrimental to the party’s interests. This lack of political acumen has significantly undermined PTI’s standing and effectiveness, leading to its near-complete disarray.

Their failures have been glaring: firstly, their inability to defend their own chairman entangled in numerous frivolous cases and subsequent incarceration. Secondly, their failure to secure the release of key political figures and thousands of workers unjustly imprisoned. Thirdly, the loss of the party’s election symbol resulted in a significant blow to PTI’s electoral prospects and brand value. Fourthly, their actions inadvertently led to the absorption of newly elected members into a sectarian political party, further tarnishing PTI’s identity. Lastly, they were unable to defend the allocation of reserve seats for women and minorities, strengthening rival parties at PTI’s expense. These missteps have not only weakened PTI but have also alienated certain segments of its support base.

Their professional mindset predisposes them to view fellow lawyers as adversaries, contributing to a lack of unity within PTI. This absence of cohesion, a hallmark of effective political parties, has left PTI fractured. Divergent opinions among self-assumed leaders mirror the courtroom dynamics of lawyers competing for favorable outcomes, resulting in internal discord and confusion. As a consequence, PTI finds itself in a state of disarray, unable to present a unified front or pursue a cohesive agenda.

During the PTI government, I had the privilege of serving as Director General to two PTI ministers, Fawad Hussain and Shibli Faraz, and developed a close relationship with Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi. From my experiences accompanying Mr. Qureshi on official and unofficial engagements as Press Attache in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and later in Geneva, Switzerland, I observed their exceptional abilities. In my opinion, their presence at the forefront of PTI leadership, the lawyers  and Mr. Raoof Hassan had a marginal role in PTI decision making. But in the absence of the political leadership, despite their sincere intentions, these lawyers-turned-PTI leaders have inadvertently damaged the party’s standing and undermined the political capital built by PTI’s founder, Mr. Imran Khan.

While PTI owes gratitude to lawyers and Mr. Raoof Hassan, who is renowned for his exceptional writing and keen political insight, it is undeniable that they cannot match the experience and expertise of genuine politicians due to many pressing reasons.

Genuine politicians bring years of political activism, governance, and public service to their roles, allowing them to navigate complex challenges with finesse. Their understanding of political dynamics, constituency needs, and policymaking processes equips them to handle intricate political maneuvering, coalition-building, and effective constituency engagement. In contrast, lawyers-turned-politicians may initially lack direct political experience, presenting challenges in grasping the nuances of political dynamics and effectively engaging with constituents.

Secondly, genuine politicians often have strong roots in their constituencies and a profound connection with the concerns and aspirations of the people they represent. Their longstanding presence and engagement within communities allow them to establish meaningful connections with constituents and address their needs effectively. Conversely, lawyers turned politicians may encounter difficulties in building such connections, especially if they lack prior experience in community engagement or grassroots organizing.

Thirdly, genuine politicians typically demonstrate strong leadership qualities, including the ability to make tough decisions, build consensus, and inspire confidence among party members and supporters. Their leadership is characterized by a keen understanding of political dynamics and a commitment to advancing the interests of their constituents. While lawyers turned politicians may bring analytical skills and legal expertise to the table, they may face challenges in adapting their approach to the broader demands of political leadership, including building alliances and navigating internal party dynamics.

Given the context outlined above, it becomes apparent why it is crucial for former President Alvi, a close associate of Imran Khan and someone with deep ties to PTI, to step forward and provide political leadership to the party.

As a genuine politician with years of experience in governance and public service, Alvi possesses the necessary acumen to navigate the complex challenges faced by PTI. His understanding of constituency needs and ability to establish meaningful connections with constituents can help reinvigorate the party’s grassroots support.

Moreover, Alvi’s demonstrated leadership qualities, including his track record of making tough decisions and building consensus, make him well-suited to unite the party and provide a clear direction amidst internal turmoil. His commitment to advancing the interests of PTI supporters and addressing their concerns underscores the importance of his leadership at this critical juncture.

By stepping forward, Alvi can work towards reclaiming PTI’s iconic symbol and disassociating it from sectarian affiliations, thereby restoring the party’s brand value and integrity. Additionally, his efforts to secure the release of Imran Khan and other imprisoned party members would signal a commitment to upholding democratic principles and ensuring justice for all PTI members.

With over ten months of experience working closely with Dr. Arif Alvi as his press secretary and media advisor, I can attest to his wisdom, articulate nature, and exceptional team-building skills. As a statesman, Dr. Alvi envisions a vibrant, forward-looking, modern, and prosperous Pakistan. During his over five-year tenure, he persistently masterminded Pakistan-specific COVID-19 protocols, saving many lives and positioning the country favorably compared to others worldwide. Dr. Alvi emphasized the importance of fast-tracked education and skill development through smart and effective short-duration courses to uplift illiterate and unskilled segments, transforming them into wealth-generating assets. He advocated for leveraging the latest technological advancements such as quantum computing, internet of things, big data management, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality. Additionally, he highlighted the significance of research and development as essential for achieving fast-track progress and development. On the social front, Dr. Alvi’s advocacy for early detection of breast cancer, addressing mental health issues, and promoting inclusivity for differently-abled individuals underscores his commitment to social causes.

Overall, Alvi’s leadership is essential in reasserting PTI’s position as a formidable political force, reuniting the party under a unified vision, and overcoming the challenges that lie ahead. His experience, integrity, and dedication to serving the people make him a fitting candidate to lead PTI effectively and take the country towards a brighter future.

By: Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC

By: Qamar Bashir

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Esa, nearing the end of his tenure, chose not to address the complaint filed by six serving judges through the Supreme Judicial Council or by convening a full court of the Supreme Court. Instead, he passed it onto the civilian government, which many perceive as being under the complete influence of the powerful establishment. This decision has been viewed as a missed opportunity to restore judicial independence from the alleged overwhelming control exerted by the establishment, which is often equated with the state itself. This control extends to all facets of governance, including the parliament, governments, cabinets, electoral processes, judicial proceedings, and foreign policy decisions, as well as the management of trade, business, investment, agriculture, and livestock.

The Chief Justice’s decision to avoid addressing the complaint prompted over 300 members of the legal fraternity to stage a protest before the Supreme Court today (31.03.2024), urging the Court to take responsibility for adjudicating the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. They argued that any government-led commission would lack the necessary independence and authority to properly investigate the claims.

Analysts, jurists, and lawyers have widely criticized the appointment of Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, who served as the 21st Chief Justice of Pakistan from 2013 to 2014, to head the one-man commission tasked with adjudicating the complaint of six judges. Many have deemed this appointment highly inadequate, inappropriate, and out of context, given Jillani’s age—barely two years younger than Pakistan itself. They argue that since the complaint directly implicates the executive branch as the culprit, appointing a commission headed by someone associated with the executive undermines the integrity of the process. It’s seen as illogical and unfitting for the accused to be tasked with providing justice to the complainants.

Meanwhile, the PTI, emerging as one of the largest stakeholders, has been particularly affected by judicial decisions allegedly manipulated by the establishment. These decisions have targeted the incarceration of PTI’s former chairman and top-tier leadership, resulting in significant upheaval within the party. PTI has not only lost its founding chairman, top and second-tier leadership, but also its iconic symbol and brand name. Currently, it has been absorbed into an irrelevant and sectarian party, Sunni Itehad, thereby alienating sympathizers from other sects. The heavy toll this has taken on PTI appears irreversible at this juncture.

The terms of reference assigned to the commission are notable for their focus on investigating direct involvement of officials in judicial interference and recommending appropriate action against implicated agencies, departments, or state institutions based on evidence uncovered. However, the absence of mention regarding indirect involvement suggests a potential gap in the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, the commission’s starting assumption that no interference has occurred places the burden of proof on the six judges, who must substantiate their claims comprehensively with evidence, witnesses, and circumstantial evidence. Failure to do so could lead to the judges facing accusations of lodging false or concocted complaints, adding a significant layer of complexity to the proceedings. Moreover, granting the commission the authority to explore additional matters deemed totally inappropriate. 

The analyst and jurists believe that the TORs assigned to the commission lack specificity and urgency in addressing the issue of unlawful interference. While they include provisions for investigating interference and recommending action, they may not adequately address the need for proactive measures to prevent future interference or hold accountable those responsible. Additionally, the assigned TORs may not fully acknowledge the complexity of the issue or provide clear guidance on how to address challenges such as fixing responsibility in the absence of concrete evidence.

Rejecting the Terms of Reference (TORs), analysts and jurists argue the letter written by the six judges transcends mere complaints or allegations. Instead, it resembles a decision by a six-member high court bench. After conducting investigations, gathering facts, and recording witness testimonies, the bench unequivocally declared the unlawful elements within the country’s prime spying agency and the establishment guilty of blatant and brute interference in judicial matters.

The bench highlighted that the unlawful elements within the establishment  use coercive tactics, including intimidation, blackmail, and eavesdropping, to influence bench formations and court decisions aligning with their political and administrative agendas. Furthermore, by openly defying or frustrating court orders that contradict their objectives, the unlawful elements within the establishment undermines the judiciary’s independence. The bench sought guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council on defensive measures to safeguard against such unlawful interference and ensure the judiciary’s autonomy to dispense justice impartially and transparently.

Analysts and jurists criticize the use of the phrase “interference of the executive”. They argue that the type of interference faced by the judiciary transcends constitutional boundaries and legal frameworks. Rather than being categorized as executive interference, it should be characterized as unlawful coercion perpetrated by rogue elements within state institutions. These elements employ illicit means to manipulate and intimidate the judiciary, undermining its independence and impartiality therefore cannot be legally termed as executive. As such, they should not be regarded as lawful actors but as unlawful elements seeking to subvert the rule of law through coercion and intimidation tactics.

Henceforth, the Terms of Reference (TORs) for the Commission should reflect a proactive approach, beginning with the acknowledgment that unlawful interference with the judiciary has already been substantiated. The Commission should then focus on recommending measures to safeguard the judiciary from undue, unlawful, and blatant interference perpetrated by rogue elements within state security institutions.

Secondly, the Commission should provide practical and actionable recommendations regarding how the lower and higher judiciary can respond effectively to such unlawful interference. These recommendations should empower the judiciary to maintain its independence and integrity in the face of external pressures.

Thirdly, the Commission must address the challenge of fixing responsibility on unlawful elements within the state security apparatus, even in the absence of concrete evidence and witnesses. Given the sophisticated techniques employed by these elements to conceal their activities, the Commission should explore innovative strategies for holding them accountable.

Fourthly, the Commission should propose the enactment of new legislation and regulations aimed at establishing dedicated security forces tasked with protecting the lower and higher judiciary from unlawful interference, whether originating from within state institutions or external non-state actors.

Lastly, the Commission should recommend mechanisms to ensure the implementation of court decisions and prevent their violation or frustration through selective administrative, legal, or illegal means. These measures should reinforce the rule of law and uphold the authority of judicial decisions in the face of external pressures.

The proposed Terms of Reference (TORs) present a comprehensive and proactive approach to addressing the issue of unlawful interference with the judiciary. They prioritize acknowledging the existing problem and recommending concrete measures to safeguard judicial independence and integrity. By focusing on empowering the judiciary to respond effectively, holding accountable those responsible for interference, and proposing legislative reforms, the proposed TORs offer a robust framework for addressing the challenges at hand.

By: Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President(Rtd)

Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC