The only difference this time around was the venue: not Karachi or Lahore, but while inaugurating the ground breaking ceremony of the Ghabir Dam project. The President and his loyalists claim that the judgement compromises the continuation of the existing democratic dispensation, targets the President and challenges the trichotomy of powers. References to other conspirators, namely those of yesteryears, read the establishment, together with the newest addition to the list of conspirators, read the media, are also being cited.

In marked contrast, those opposed to the President maintain that the judgement must not be seen as the encroachment of the judiciary on the executive s prerogatives and cite two paragraphs from the detailed judgement as proof. First, the qualification inserted by the dictator Zia-ul-Haq as Article 62 (f) of the Constitution, which stipulates that a member of parliament must be sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and Ameen, has been clarified by the court as follows, if a person involved in corruption and corrupt practices has been finally adjudged to be so then on the basis of the final judgement can he be disqualified; or, in other words, a person has to be convicted prior to being disqualified. Hence the court is not interested in interpreting morality as laid down in Article 62 (f). Ideally, one of course hopes that the committee engaged in revising the constitution would scrap 62 (f).

And second, the court stipulates that legislators and functionaries performing executive functions may resort to expediency, compromise and accommodation in achieving political and policy objectives considered in their judgement. So long as decisions conform to and are not violative of the Constitution, the executive and the legislature are only accountable to the electorate and not to courts. Or in other words, the judiciary has limited itself to safeguarding the Constitution from being violated by an individual or institution. It is, after all, upto the legislators to amend the Constitution if they have the requisite numbers to do so.

However, the battle lines have been drawn between supporters of the President and those opposed to him, positions that are being defended by citing appropriate passages from the detailed judgement. What is notable is that several extremely respected members of the legal community, known to be bipartisan have also accused the Supreme Court of delving into matter that not only go beyond its jurisdiction, but also smack of political victimisation.

Without taking any position on the judgement, it is nonetheless pertinent to consider the larger ramifications of a conflict between the executive and the judiciary that appears to be brewing in spite of Prime Minister Gilani s statement in Lahore on Friday that he has directed the Law Ministry, headed by Babar Awan, to implement the verdict. The reason is that the man who is considered to be the incharge, namely the President, remains publicly defiant.

President Zardari, in his latest speech, stated that conspiracy of the pen or bayonets would not kill us , as the people of Pakistan would foil any such attempt. The success of his prognosis presupposes the existence of one factor: the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict in letter and spirit would somehow be resisted by the general public - a resistance that, given the content of his recent speeches, may be spearheaded by the PPP. This brings to mind the storming of the Supreme Court in 28/11/1997 when Mian Nawaz Sharif was the Prime Minister of the country. His then Information Minister Mushahid Hussain, at that time more loyal to Mian sahib than the king, was present during the charge on the Supreme Court, as witnessed by BBC viewers. At the time the local independent media was restricted to the print media.

It is relevant to note that the situation then was markedly similar to the existing situation in two important respects. First, the then Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had a history of conflict with Nawaz Sharif, which began in 1993 when the latter was the only dissenter in the 11-member bench, which decided to restore Sharif to power till the time when the CJ issued a contempt of court notice against Prime Minister Sharif. President Zardari is on record as having challenged CJ Chaudhry s past record, particularly with reference to his taking oath under Musharraf s first PCO, and accusing him of refusing to grant him bail while he was wrongfully incarcerated during the Musharraf era. The second point of similarity between then and now is the government s initial response.

Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had proposed a list of judges to fill vacant positions, recommendations that were turned down by Mian Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister.

In recent weeks the government has remained quiet on the Chief Justice s proposals to fill vacancies in high courts as well as in the Supreme Court and his request to appoint the recently retired Justice Ramday as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court. The PPP government maintains that it is following the principle of seniority, a principle defied by the CJ as reflected in his recommendation.

Thus the issues between the de facto ruler of the state and the country s top judge in 1997 and 2009/10 are allegedly of a personal nature and the two administrations initial response appears to be markedly similar. What one would hope is that this initial similarity in reaction does not translate into the second storming of the Supreme Court.

The question comes back to the people of this country? Would they be willing to derail the implementation of the judicial verdicts? Many challenge the President s capacity to mobilise large public gatherings unlike the former two chairpersons of the party. Can the PPP as a party mobilise the people of this country? I would like to err on the side of caution and stipulate that some parts of the country would be mobilised by the PPP. What is the worst case scenario? The judiciary highly regarded by the public as revealed in several recent surveys as opposed to the decline in popularity of the PPP leadership in general and of President Zardari in particular who never had high ratings in any case, is telling.

Add the element of the energy crisis into its 22nd month now, inflationary pressures whose rise may have slowed down, but have certainly not been reversed from the high of 25 percent last year, and the impact of cartelisation and smuggling on the quality of life of the people and one wonders if popular support, as opposed to die-hard jiyalas, are likely to support President Zardari. It is also germane to the issue that charges of corruption against him were believed by jiyalas of yesteryear, a fact that many argue accounted for Benazir Bhutto s decision not to bring him into politics soon after her agreement with Musharraf allowing her safe passage back into the country.

There are those who argue that there are major differences between then and now in three important respects at least: (i) Sajjad Ali Shah never gained the status of Iftikhar Chaudhry as the latter was reinstated after sustained popular demand, the only CJ of this country that comes closest to having a popular mandate akin to politicians; (ii) the media has emerged as much more powerful and informed, unlikely to be bullied by the government in 2009/10 in comparison to 1997.

The government has alleged that powerful media moguls are corrupt, however, it continues to ignore the fact that the onus of establishing a case rests with the government. Additionally the independent media may claim that it is presenting a fair and balanced opinion, but it is not its legal obligation as different media organisations exercise the right to follow an editorial policy, based on their political and/or economic interests; and (iii) the leader of PPP is no longer a charismatic Bhutto or even a Nawaz Sharif, who had won a heavy mandate at the time but a relative political novice, Zardari.

Be that as it may it is doubtful if the judiciary without the support of the army would be able to unseat Zardari as the President, though his unseating as the co-chairperson of the party would be an internal PPP matter. The President is clearly thinking of sustaining his position in the short term though politics is about the long term. Be that as it may, it is a tough call for the people of this country and one can only hope that better sense would prevail but then it never has in this country s politics.