A lesson from Pakistan: Don’t undercut the courts

The resignation of Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is a resounding victory for Pakistan’s constitution, for democracy and for the rule of law.

If ever there was a testament to the threats posed to democracy by the rule of men, we have been witnessing it the past six months in Pakistan. If ever there was a testament to the importance of the rule of law, the principle on which our own country was founded, we have been witnessing it the past six months in Pakistan. If ever there was doubt that democracy depends upon the strength of independent and impartial courts, we have been witnessing it the past six months in Pakistan.

Musharraf, who resigned under the threat of impeachment, began demolishing Pakistan’s pillars of democracy last March by suspending the constitution, dissolving the supreme court and the four provincial high courts, placing the chief justice under house arrest, and silencing privately owned television news channels —- all in the name (ironically) of limiting terrorism and preserving democracy.

Musharraf’s actions exemplify what our founding fathers feared most when they drafted our own Constitution: that the rule of men might supersede the rule of law unless vital fortifications were put in place to prevent it. Primary among these is the separation of powers —- three co-equal branches of government to check and balance each other.

The rule of men is built on sand. The rule of men is arbitrary. The rule of law, on the other hand, is built on rock. It ensures that everyone —- even the most power-hungry leader or money-hungry group —- is subject to the same laws and rules as the rest of us.

Could what’s happening in Pakistan ever happen here? A few years ago I would have said, “Absolutely not.” But now I’m not so sure. Recent attempts by the executive branch to overstep its constitutional authority, curbing the power of Congress and the courts to keep it in check, concern me gravely: Justice Department hirings and firings based on partisan politics, unwarranted domestic wiretapping under the Patriot Act, strong-arming Congress into granting amnesty to telecoms that cooperated in domestic wiretapping.

And where does the United States stand on the blatant overthrow of democracy under Musharraf? American policy, which has bankrolled Pakistan’s military with $10 billion in aid since 2001, remains dubious.

The New York Times reports: “The White House reaction [to Musharraf’s resignation] was muted.”

Six months ago, the Bush administration chose to keep billions of dollars flowing to Pakistan’s military, despite the detention of human rights advocates and leaders of the political opposition by the country’s president, the Times reported. “In carefully calibrated public statements and blunter private acknowledgments about the limits of American leverage over General Musharraf … the officials argued that it would be counterproductive to let Pakistan’s political turmoil interfere with their best hope of ousting al-Qaida’s central leadership and the Taliban from the country’s mountainous tribal areas.”

Apparently, everything —- even democracy —- is expendable when it comes to the war on terrorism. But isn’t democracy what we’re trying to save from the terrorists? As Ben Franklin observed: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Congress and the courts aren’t enemies to be conquered. They’re vital bulwarks put in place by our founding fathers to prevent exactly the kind of thing that’s been happening today in Pakistan.

Don’t be lulled into believing what’s happening in Pakistan can’t happen here. It can and it might if we don’t take the trouble to zealously protect the institutions that protect democracy and the American promise of liberty and justice for all.

> Jay Cook is president of the board of directors of the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public about the civil justice system.