Aamir Qureshi—AFP
The latest debate over “sadiq” (truthful) and “ameen” (honest)—two words used in the Constitution to describe suitable candidates for political office—started when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan described Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, which contains these words, as “draconian.” Everyone in his right mind knows that in the presence of effective definitions of human conduct in the law of the land there was no need to dip into “ideology” to introduce concepts liable to be misused by the demonstratively religious in the court of law. What helped were two “ideological” articles in the “Islamized” Constitution that did not exist in the original constitution but were inserted by the country’s religious dictator, General Ziaul Haq.
Article 62 tells us what kind of people should sit in Parliament, called Majlis-e-Shoora, knowing by heart all teachings of the Quran and Sharia. The words now called “draconian” by the by CJP were taken from the Quran. In other words, in the “perfect” Islamic state of Pakistan there will be men—sadiq and ameen—who will run the affairs of the state brimming with piety. In contrast, the record of the Islamic state over the years shows that “piety” is not the criterion of suitability for parliament; and in fact a man knowing the scripture by heart may be singularly corrupt. Reading the clause, honest people men across the world would be having belly-laughs over how a modern state can be foolishly sanctimonious. Only a scholar-by-rote would qualify for the standard set for explaining honesty. To make a law from it can only be called draconian. Some politicians were actually to fall victim to this constitutional clause.
Pakistan was Islamized by General Zia as a “correction” to what Jinnah had done for Pakistan. When Zia died in a plane-crash, his “pious” colleague, ex-ISI chief Hamid Gul, was of the opinion that the Americans had got him killed after they had used him because he was going to set up a true “shariat-based” Islamic state. Later, he sought o justify his stance further by claiming Americans “often” killed off leaders after using them, also referring to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in this connection. Both the allegations were wrong and villainous as was proved later by facts that came to light: perhaps the killers of Zia were more pious “sadiq” and ”ameen” than their victim.
Ideology became fashionable because of the Soviet Union, which was based on an “ideology” that proved to be ”false consciousness” after the collapse of the coercive state. “Sadiq” and “ameen”—as the chief justice discovered although belatedly—is draconian because it was inserted into the Constitution dishonestly without regard to how it can distort the normal process of law. In an ideological state—if fascist and totalitarian—there are supposed to be no individual liberties. The state is coercive, as in Iran, and people don’t have the right to think freely. In that sense, one can say that Pakistan is an “incomplete” ideological state, a hybrid distasteful to the Islamists but one that will offend its own people through formations like “sadiq” and “ameen.”