|
Emergency rule is where the president seizes ultimate authority; the military is no more in control than before. In this case, the courts, the police, the bureaucracy and the parliament continue. The constitution is partially in abeyance; the president claims the authority to unilaterally rewrite bits of it and reinstate it. Much of the constitution remains in effect. A number of basic rights--assembly, press, speech, equality before the law (take that to mean "equal and due process"), plus some others--are suspended. Some aren't. Pakistan's functioning under a provisional constitutional order (I think that's what "PCO" stands for).
Martial law: The Constitution is scrapped. It can't be simply reinstated, presumably, although I imagine that few would disagree with taking it back if Musharraf said "oops, all a mistake, as you were" (except that in the case of Pakistan there are people arguing that the previous rewrites that Musharraf did in 1999 should be rejected, even though Parliament later approved the changes). Under martial law, Parliament and the courts are scrapped. The police answer to the military, which has ultimate control. They may implement the usual civilian laws, but it's soldiers that do so. The president isn't a president, he's a general, and functions in that capacity. There are no rights unless the military allows you. Typically you get a curfew.
This is "emergency plus"; he's doing a bit more than 'emergency rule', but hasn't gone so far as to hit 'martial law'. One may consider it 'martial law light', but in theory a PCO is provided for in the basic law, while martial law is not. Now, I think I got that right.
As with many things, the definitions differ from country to country. I personally find it unacceptable that it's Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take cases sui moto, that is, it can unilaterally file charges against a person, issue warrants, arrange for prosecution, try a person, and sentence him, without any other branch of government being involved.
|