Is the Constitution Divorced from the Morality?

Justice is the great standing policy of a living nation and conscious society. Departing from justice, whatever the circumstances may be, puts the existence of even wise policies under suspicion. Longing for peace and security of lives, honour and properties for about 63 years, the people, extremely tired, have been marching in a long and dark tunnel towards the other end anxiously waiting to see the rays of justice there. But unfortunately not only the policies, entire system is under suspicion. Our society lacks order and peace because there can be no peace without any order and no order without justice and pure justice has always been in jeopardy here. Freedom was won but justice, though exacted, never gained. Not only the centers of power and opportunist groups seeing their evil designs and vested interests in risk block the road leading to the justice. Though in our society being involved in litigation over petty issues, knocking the doors of the courts is a common thing but what the justice really is, a thing never seen. The question has been not of any worth. Superior courts used to be known as only an instrumental to provide legitimacy to the military rules and not delivering the justice.

The attempt of the military ruler Parvez Musharaf to tame the judiciary by forcing the CJ either to toe his lines or to resign was actually more immoral act than just an unconstitutional. And if not tamed, purging of the restive judiciary was thought only way to fulfill the dictatorial wishes. The goal ahead was to get re-elected as the president in the uniform of the chief of army staff. There is no moral evil greater than lust of power, breach of the oath, transgression of the constitutional limits and going beyond the mandate of the rank.

Diversity is more likely in definition and manifestation of moral values of different societies but the constitutions of civilized nations are hardly found with the lapses of moral values, cultural traits and national interests. Constitutions contain the rules how much mandate and power different institutions have and how they are to be exercised but are blended with the moral values of the particular societies. The constitution is trampled only when it is divorced from the moral values and collective national conscience or when the men in power in different state institutions are morally and mentally of mean and vile level.

The Objectives Resolution, once used to be the preamble of our constitutions is now a significant part of it, has set the social and moral principles, enunciated and fully guaranteed by Islam. Legally the blow on the judiciary, by not only sacking the judges also putting them under house arrest with their family members, might have been termed unconstitutional but the evil motives behind the step were enough to dub it immoral and inhumane act. This was not the first contempt of constitution. But this was, of course, the first time entire society was shaken and a movement for reinstatement of the judges and restoration of judiciary started. Why? Because it was the first time the dictator was having a go at the judiciary very openly and it was the first time when the judiciary resisted the unethical and unprincipled demand very boldly.

The dictator did what he did. The nation was united to say no to what was done for subduing the judiciary. A movement started. The lawyers were at the forefront. Political workers, civil society, media and the masses stood at the back of the lawyers. No doubt the struggle was for getting an institution damaged by dictatorial blow restored but the moral objectives were not out of sight. It is only the ugly polity discriminating the things and putting them in different columns now but then all that was constitutional was regarded moral and all that was moral was not separated from constitutional. The core point of the movement was getting the judiciary’s building, badly shaken by the military dictator, renovated and erect the fourth pillar of democracy from where it was rooted out.

During the movement for restoration of judiciary all the liberals, enlightened, moderates and also the conservatives and the Islamists were concordant and in the same boat. But now when the judiciary has become fully functional and it has started touching some sleeping articles of the constitution regarding the eligibility for the important posts, the eminent lawyers who led the movement, themselves seem knitting the brows and showing their disgust. They seem to be allured by political expediency and personal interests and some kind of ‘shine’ a clear ideological diversion in their stand. Some VVIPs, seem adversely affected by the same constitutional articles which are heavy to digest for the liberals, ‘enlightened’ and ‘moderate’ elements. Some of the leading lawyers now show more sympathy for those who are getting entangled in the web of lies and corruption than their commitment to the moral aspects of the matters. So they say, as we see in the statement of Ch. E’tzaz Ahsan in the newspapers of February 9, that the lawyers’ movement was not for establishing moral values but was just to get the constitution restored.

He will then have to make us understand is the constitution divorced from the ethical values and religious obligations? Did those who looted and made huge amounts of money worth billions of dollars using the political position and influence violated only constitution and law or they are morally plagued? Is dishonesty a constitutional matter or a moral disease too?