While Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilanis broadcast on Sunday night did not really resolve the judicial crisis, it did provoke considerations of how well or otherwise the PM was following in his use of the broadcast, and in turn about how political leaders have used the electronic media to put across a message. Gilani has travelled a long way from the early years, when political leaders tried to deal with the new electronic media by ignoring them. However, where these were developing, there was also a worldwide phenomenon occurring, which obliged political leaders to reach out to the people by any means possible. And what if the additional means were more powerful, by far, than the traditional means? This was the origin of the British party broadcasts before elections and US President Franklin Roose-velts 'fireside chats. Perhaps, the realisation, at least in political circles, of the potential of what was then the new medium of the radio, must be ascribed to British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who is credited with making the first radio campaign speech designed for the medium for the 1924 election. His rivals included one person who told BBC to record his campaign speech of one he made during an actual campaign appearance, and didnt mention his habit of walking up and down the platform. The sound quality was obviously not very good. There are other reasons for Baldwin winning that election, of 1924, but the broadcast is given credit. Politicians had not yet gained mastery over radio, when electronic medium became media, with TV added. World War II had intervened, with Hitler the consummate performer having lost, and politicians took to the new medium by bringing many of the techniques they had learnt from radio, just like so many professionals, as well as documentary films. That was the ability that Gilani used, and he gave this address more importance than previous ones. In fact, his desire to give it significance led him to a departure from the presidential tradition of splendid isolation, derived in turn from the USAs President, in which the President starts off with my fellow Americans, loosely translated by Ayub Khan as mere aziz humwatno forever associated with him, and used only by other military dictators. Gilani did not use this formulation, as before, but his real departure was in having provincial governments represented. Not all the provinces sent the heads of their governments, with Punjab and Sindh sending their Senior Ministers. It was not a case of only PPP people being invited, for the NWFP Chief Minister and the AJK Prime Minister did not belong to the PPP, though the Sindh Chief Minister did. He claimed to be sick, though this was not an occasion he would have missed under any circumstances, had he not had some sort of backing. He should be presumed to have the same backing as Federal Ministers Babar Awan and Rehman Malik of the President. It should be noted that he did not claim that the situation in his capital was deteriorating, for though he presided over just such a worsening before the Benazir government was sacked by Ghulam Ishaq Khan in 1990, he did not make claims this time around. Be that as it may, the PM tried to show that all the governments were on the same page as him. This in a way contradicted the content of his speech; that the Prime Ministers word was to be honoured. Presumably, it is to be honoured in the provinces too, and thus the presence of the provincial chiefs or their representatives was probably not needed. Also, was it routine, enthusiasm or the sending of a message that prompted the invitation of two representatives from Azad Kashmir? The elevation of the Chief Minister of Gilgit-Baltistan to the same level as the provinces of Pakistan may have made him very enthusiastic, but it does not even have a historical basis, let alone a constitutional. The Constitution of Pakistan provides only for accession to it, as well as a special status for Azad Kashmir, which is governed by its own Constitution, and not a standard provincial constitution embedded in the federal that governs the four provinces. Though the overt message was one of non-confrontation, the presence of the provinces representatives showed that the provinces were lined up in support of the PM. Support against whom? The judiciary, the PM promised that there would be no clash between state institutions? Though the PM tried to appear eminently reasonable, there seems no reason to believe that he converted anyone. However, it seems that he did convince both the Presidency and himself that he was doing a fine job of avoiding contempt of the Supreme Court. Whether he was equally successful in convincing the court or not, only time and the patience of the court will tell. The doctrine of prime ministerial infallibility enunciated was perhaps only too natural, but did not apparently take account of the needs of accountability, by Parliament, which is the reason why it puts the Leader of the House at the head of the executive. Following the example of perhaps everyone else, Gilani tried to claim as much responsibility for his office as possible. However, he offered the nation no explanation of why the office did not allow him to implement the courts NRO verdict. Indeed, he managed to speak about executive-judiciary relations without mentioning it, though its non-implementation is the single biggest irritant in that relationship. The Supreme Court cannot be accused of any confrontation, because the verdict may have not found the President as immune as he thought. It did not accept the argument that the doctrine extended to any offences he may have committed before assuming office. The Supreme Court merely exercised its constitutionally imposed responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. However, it found itself dealing with a PM who did not enjoy office by virtue of commanding the majority which gave him the office, but by virtue of the pleasure of an individual who was co-chairman of his party, and whose being President owed itself to his party position. Thus, the Supreme Court not only found itself faced with the unprecedented situation of a President who had faced criminal charges and would face them again, but also a PM who was both responsible for that prosecution and owed his own position to that President. This was a situation where 'reasons of state were almost tailor-made to prevail. However, the courts intention to uphold the 'rule of law more or less forced it to act in a certain way. The judiciary does not want to rock any boat. However, consisting of lawyers and judges of long experience, the court is obliged to act as it does by the Constitution. In his speech, the Prime Minister showed no sign of understanding that the court was labouring under a sense of obligation by the Constitution, and were even more disinclined to engage in a confrontation. Only he can solve the impasse by ensuring the implementation of all the courts verdicts, without regard to who had placed him at the head of the executive. Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk