After addressing a rally of supporters in Liaqat Bagh, Rawalpindi, Benazir Bhutto was shot at, followed by a bomb blast explosion. Benazir Bhutto arrived in the hospital in a critical condition before succumbing to her injuries. According to the official version which was issued yesterday, she was killed by the impact her head had with a ‘lever’ due to the massive force generated by the bomb blast. The Chairperson of Pakistan Peoples Party and two-time former premier of her country is no more to guide her party to the January 8 elections—the fate of which hangs in the balance as well.
Whether there was a failure on the part of the security provided to her by providing a safe cordon to her vehicle or the voluntary act of Benazir Bhutto to come out of the sunroof of her bullet proof her which led to her death, one can only speculate and comment as any enquiry can hardly be termed as ‘independent’ in this country in the same way that the stage was set for an elections in 2008 which were all but ‘fair and free’. Similarly, initially it was suggested that she was she suffered from two bullet wounds, one each to the windpipe and the head which were the cause of her death. Now the official version is at variance with that and it is unclear which version is to be accepted. The official version apportions the blame at Behtullah Masud on the basis of a congratulated message that was delivered by it to its supporters following Benazir Bhutto’s death. It is an unlikely event that any enquiry would even think about apportioning any blame on a government, if at all, which is bent upon enforcing its will on the people on any cost.
It is necessary therefore to reflect on the past to understand what may have allowed the perpetrator to be so close to Benazir Bhutto’s car with some heavy explosive material undetected. When Benazir Bhutto escaped death in the October 18 event, she highlighted some relevant points relating to the blast which led a prudent man to believe that at least some hand of the authorities or a part thereof could not have been ruled out in the failed plot. On that occasion as well as subsequently, the jammers provided to her to foil a bomb attack failed to work. Although the jammers would probably have failed to stall a suicide attack, the very fact that the authorities turned a deaf ear to her requests speaks volumes of the bona fides of the authorities in protecting the most vulnerable politician in Pakistan on the hit list of terrorist organizations. These facts along with others were being repeatedly being brought to the attention to President Musharraf but he had brushed aside such facts summarily without investigating their veracity. Such failure to act on the part of the establishment left claims of the PPP’s top leadership regarding inadequate security for the Benazir Bhutto implies that the authorities now are to be blamed alongside the ‘terrorist’ who killed Benazir Bhutto.
Numerous incidents of violence are being reported all over the country as a result of her death. Many of her mourners are in a state of disbelief and shock and have chosen to express their grief through countrywide agitation. Karachi is in a state of terrible disarray as a result and many governmental and private buildings have been set ablaze. However the violence is not limited to Sindh, where PPP has a strong mass support but has also affected Lahore and the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad are in a state of a virtual siege. At such a sensitive time when trains and buildings are being torched, it is pertinent to note the thin presence of security officials who have virtually left the country at the mercy of angry mobs and criminals. The police is conspicuous by its absence everywhere. The elections which were scheduled for next year have suddenly lost importance. Nawaz Sharif of PML(N) has announced a boycott of the elections. Whether the PPP would participate as originally planned is not clear as top leadership is expected to decide as soon as Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is absorbed. Since power politics in Pakistan is largely focused on personalities, it would be a difficult task for PPP to rise above their differences and decide who the best person would be to succeed Benazir Bhutto’s leadership.
Although there were many question marks over Benazir Bhutto’s policies which were reflected in her statements, which many thought reflected a compromise on principles the party stood for in order to ‘reconciliate’ with President Musharraf who is accused of abrogating the Constitution of Pakistan and democracy therein, Benazir Bhutto was nevertheless a democrat, a liberal who portrayed a soft image of Pakistan as a moderate country in which extremists could be defeated through the power of the masses and appeal to the electorate rather than strengthening a willing dictator and weakening democracy. Although there were several corruption charges against her and her party which resulted in her government being dismissed twice as well as various charges being framed across the country as well as in foreign jurisdictions, due to the grass root level support that her party enjoyed, her party had always an important role to play.
Although the writer was and still is a strong critic of many of her policies, she was nevertheless a beacon of democracy in this country. It is difficult to assess the impact of her absence on PPP as many supporters had affilitated the Bhuttos with the PPP and in the absence of an adult heir in her party presently, it is hard to imagine that Ghinwa Bhutto, a strong critic of Benazir Bhutto or Ghinwa’s daughter, Fatma Bhutto would be accepted by the party top rank to lead a party they probably believe owes its continuity and survival to their own loyalty to Benazir Bhutto and the party and they themselves therefore need to play a role now rather then such rebellious family members. Her sister Sanam Bhutto has no political history and is unlikely to assume a future political career. It is hard to imagine the party being led by her husband, Asif Ali Zardari who has never truly assumed a leadership role and to the contrary, has gained a notorious name for her wife and the party as well by engaging in corrupt methods himself at various times. Makhdoom Amin Fahim and Yousaf Raza Gillani, two party stalwarts who command respect along with Aitzaz Ahsan, who has recently acquired fame for his role in the ongoing judicial tragedy that struck this country, are probably the ones who command the most respect and support in the party. It would be important for any future leader who may emerge through a consensus to devise a strategy through which Pakistan People’s Party can lead the people who repose tremendous trust in it.
Benazir Bhutto turned out to be a brave lady at the end nevertheless who brushed aside all threats to her life and advice from well-wishers to return to the people who loved her and were ready to give live for her—as most of her ardent fans are prepared to do. It is unfortunate though that she has not been able to change the destiny of her people in any significant way in the past and was denied an opportunity to prove her critics wrong in a chance she was likely to have another time post-January 8 elections. Along with other things, her American support would distinguish her from her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, on whose side she is buried, whom the Americans opposed for his vision to see the Muslim Ummah united under a banner.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
International Republican Institute survey- a closer look
Two leading Democratic candidates – Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Bidden perceive Pakistan as the most dangerous country in the world ahead of Iran and China, as revealed by them during interviews to CBS Evening News. This is not to say that the remaining ten who also appeared for the interview, do not think that Pakistan is ‘dangerous’ but merely not on the top of their list.
What has allowed this country to be viewed in this context by top contenders for the presidential spot has some multi dimensional aspects which include the events of 9/11 and the expansion of the war on terrorism to encompass the territory of a nuclear country which is predominantly a Muslim state. The crucial connection between ‘Islamists’ and Pakistan becomes apparent right at the outset. However, our foreign policy as well as the tendency of autocratic leaders and ‘democratic leaders’ alike in seeking support of the U.S. in ‘eliminating terrorism’ whilst portraying the region as a nuclear conflict zone and a nuclear take-over zone has certainly helped us achieve this task.
Time and again reminders are conveyed through diplomatic and non-diplomatic channels to the world that there is a need to control the spread of such Islamist elements who seek to set up a parallel administrative system in this country. Instead of focusing on how to address such issues internally within the political and constitutional confines of our own system, there is an increasing tendency amongst such ‘leaders’ to offer themselves to the U.S. as the best possible candidates to check this menace from spreading. The U.S. then offers mild criticisms to all constitutional deviations by Musharraf which move towards the ‘greater cause’ of keeping such individuals at the helm of affairs—be they suspension of fundamental rights and an attack on the judicial organ of the state or the promulgation of National Reconciliation Ordinance to allow Benazir Bhutto to partner Musharraf and diffuse the growing discontent against his illegal rule.
According to a survey report conducted by International Republican Institute (IRI), a substantial majority of the people of Pakistan want Musharraf to step down. A like majority oppose the power sharing arrangement between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, which is favoured by the U.S. Both of them, as benefactors of U.S. which offers them support at all levels, are keen to return the favour in such a future arrangement by promoting the cause of the U.S. in the region. Although Benazir Bhutto still enjoys a considerable support amongst the masses, especially in Sindh but it is clear that her support has dwindled, as opposed to increased, by the constant backing she has received from senior U.S. diplomats who perceive her presence at the helm of affairs necessary in order to continue to exercise influence in this part of the world for its own purposes.
Although the survey report is bound to attract criticism since it only relies on a sample of interviewed people and not the majority of the people, yet such surveys are helpful indicators of the opinion of the public at large. Therefore it is safe to judge that the public at large, or at least the educated amongst them, prefer self-rule, rather than an arrangement between a representative of the people on one hand and an autocratic ruler (who has demolished all institutions inscribed in the constitution) which compromises self-rule for a rule based upon foreign dictates.
Pakistan is, if at all, a ‘dangerous country’ not because of the threat of ‘Islamists’ or ‘militants’ or whatever one may call them threatening the writ of the state but due to the U.S. interference in its internal affairs which comes in liaison with the invitation of our domestic ‘leaders’. Being contrary to the will of the people as highlighted by the survey report, it is unlikely that the U.S. policy would be sustainable for a long period of time, if at all. There is an increasing awareness amongst the people today which allows them to understand the multiplicities of this policy. Their understanding of important issues surrounding them has come through the media as well as the lawyers’ movement which has allowed them to understand such issues as well as the constitution and its importance.
The constitution binds the individual to the state and a social contract exists between the two which is mutually beneficial. Individuals’ rights are guaranteed under the constitution. It is only within the confines of the constitution that the state is allowed to exercise the delegated authority entrusted to it by individuals and its representative nature guarantees that it is accountable to individuals in exercise of its authority within the constitutional framework in line with national interest and the will of the people which is always considered to be paramount. As opposed to the old notion of authority which was assumed by a usurper, the modern concept of authority is understood to be a delegated one by none other than the people themselves.
However, if military coups which work outside such constitutional limits become a frequent occurrence as it has become in our tainted history, it is bound to create gaps between the state and the individuals and surveys such as the one released by IRI should come as no surprise. It is pertinent that such gaps increase if the people’s representatives (Benazir Bhutto) conclude ‘deal’ at the back of the people yet claim to be representatives of the people and befool the uneducated masses. The will of the governed is at tandems with those who govern them which do not allow people to enjoy the benefits of democracy.
The lawyers’ movement seeks to achieve more than what it proclaims it is. In seeking to uphold constitutional supremacy, rule of law and independence of judiciary, in the broader context it also attempts to educate the masses about inequities which surround them which, although are guaranteed to them under the constitution, are denied to them through manipulation of a class of individuals who seek to maintain their supremacy over the will of the people as well as maintain the status quo which is decisively in the favour of such class. The pre-November 3 judiciary had allowed to masses to understand the importance of such matters and it was seen that the beneficiaries of supremacy of constitution and rule of law helped not only individuals in their grievance against the state or emanations of the state as well as public functionaries, but also failed attempts by corrupt individuals who, in the past were able to amass private wealth at a huge cost to the national exchequer and hence the collective interest of individuals was usurped. The stalling of the process of privatization of Pakistan Steel Mills is a prime example of the latter. How many missing persons were recovered by the executive through the intervention of the judiciary is an example of the former.
The lawyers’ movement must be viewed in this context. Civil rights activists, students and all stakeholders have joined this cause since they have become equally aware of the importance of lawyers’ movement. It is important that now since the lawyers have taken a united and uncompromising stance against all constitutional deviations at a time when a significant majority of the judicial officers are also with them, they do not allow their movement to be sabotaged or tainted through political maneuverings. In this respect, their demand-- for the restoration of the legal order prior to the ‘martial law’ must be taken seriously since they are an indispensable stakeholder of the legal system of this country.
Although the PML(N) has taken a belated decision to participate in the forthcoming elections contrary to the lawyers’ call for an outright boycott, the lawyers must not seek to distance themselves from the party considering that it is the only significant one which supports their cause outright and owes its return to the political scene to the lawyer’s struggle post March 9, 2007. Nawaz Sharif’s return was no doubt precipitated by the lawyers’ movement as well as an unflinching judiciary which comprised of judges of conscience. It would be unconscionable now for PML(N) to abandon the cause of the very judiciary which enforced the fundamental right of its leader to return to his country against all odds and opposition from the executive. It is true that had PML(N) joined the lawyers in a boycott their cause would have been strengthened in the context of declining legitimacy to Musharraf’s post November 3 set-up but it was at the same time becoming increasingly clear that Benazir Bhutto and JUI-F as well as the PML(Q)—all of whom oppose reinstatement of judges directly and indirectly looked set to legitimize Musharraf’s post November 3 steps in a friendly House. The PML(N) has possibly taken a wise decision in its interest as a boycott by it would have possibly marginalized the party in favour of PML(Q) and PPP who could have possibly hurt the cause of the lawyers in a House where no major party supporting the lawyers’ cause would have been present. The beneficiaries of PML(N) boycott would have been none other than those who may have sought to provide legitimacy to the sacking of the judiciary which would have weakened the lawyers’ movement and the public interest in it.
A total alienation of PML(N) by lawyers therefore may result in a situation in the future wherein it becomes impossible for them to work together for a cause which is greater than the differences in opinions which surround them. The beneficiaries of such an isolationist approach would be none other than the ones who seek to quash the lawyers’ movement and the ultimate looser would be lawyers and the movement that they stand for. Instead of drawing a line between politicians who boycott elections on one hand and bracketing all the others on the same lines who participate, it would serve the lawyers’ movement if they do not close their options on any front which allows them a platform where their cause can be furthered.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Electoral games and manifestos (2)
It is in this context that the legal fraternity has called for an outright boycott of an election which looks set to be rigged, even according to Benazir Bhutto’s own assertions. Why then there is an urge to participate in the process ‘under protest’ needs some sound reasoning which is missing in the present scenario. During the National Lawyer’s Convention yesterday, lawyers have reiterated their demand to boycott such sham elections which are merely a disguised version of the regime’s plan to hold onto power, led by Musharraf.
It was heartening to see the passion and resolve of lawyers representing their respective bar associations during the convention who seem bent upon restoring the judiciary which was dismissed in an arbitrary fashion by Musharraf, merely to seek the office of the President. There were no signs during the convention that the lawyers’ movement for the preservation of independence of judiciary had lost any momentum since the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was reinstated earlier this year.
It was brought to the notice of the audience by Hamid Khan, a prominent figure during the judicial crises and still is, that Munir Malik, former President, Supreme Court of Pakistan and also a counsel of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry along with Hamid Khan and some others, that Mr. Malik’s condition had not improved till date and not surprisingly the reason for his ailment seems to be contaminated juice which was provided to him during his imprisonment. The government is totally responsible for his ailment and foul play cannot be ruled out as it is indeed a police state, as it is now, and anything is possible. Munir Malik had, during the judicial crises earlier this year, defied all threats to his security and well being as well as his family’s and perhaps this was the right time to teach him a lesson.
The British High Commissioner had earlier this week stated that the issue of the reinstatement of the judiciary was unimportant to it as far as constitutional issues of Pakistan were concerned. He had further stated that the independence of the judiciary can be established by looking towards the future rather than the reinstatement of such judges. Similarly, the U.S. has overlooked the reinstatement issue. Clearly, the official position of both these countries conform to the views of Benazir Bhutto. At times however, she is willing to go a step beyond and offers something which is based on fictitious assumptions in a bid to gain leverage with such countries. Her statements on the nuclear program of this country are dangerous to say the least. She portrays Pakistan as a country where the extremists are a stone’s throw away from reaching the capital, Islamabad, which is far from being true. It was seen how the militants in Swat were advertised as a forecast for the rest of the country as well and then within days the military operation claims to have swept the valley clean of such elements. This was part of a script play of Musharraf from which she seeks to benefit even if something has to be built in the air. Musharraf would quite clearly be interested in displaying such an image of Pakistan to the rest of the world in order to present himself and the armed forces of this country the last hope for the West to contain extremism within this country. This however has the effect of enabling analysts to predict that a takeover of our nuclear assets by militants is a real possibility. It is an open invitation to the imperialist power of the world, the U.S. which considers itself as a global policeman, to prepare contingent plans of invasion of its forces into our sovereign country to secure these national assets.
The recent news relating to the disclosure of the handing over the blue prints of such a plan by Mr. Kagan, an architect of the U.S. invasion in Iraq, to none other than the supreme commander of the U.S. army and U.S. President, Mr. Bush should sound alarming bells in all quarters. We developed a strategic national asset which provides us with a ‘minimum deterrent’ vis a vis India which is a self-proclaimed enemy, yet seek to assist its destruction in these indirect ways. Perhaps Benazir Bhutto does not realize the repercussions of her assertions and lacks the great statesmanship and vision of her charismatic father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. It is unlikely however, considering that she has great experience in international relations and diplomatic overtures and policy statements and is therefore guilty of committing acts intentionally which is close to that of a traitor.
However, to seek mere personal gains, in her quest for power and gaining U.S. sympathy along with it, she is committing a greater sin than all her sins combined. Nothing equates to putting at risk the territorial sovereignty and valuable assets of a country and she must abandon such politics. She needs to draw a line between her personal interests and national interests which perhaps she deliberately seems to overlook on all such occasions. One needs not look far but the neighboring Iran to realize how difficult it is for the world to accept that a Muslim country is even prepared to make nuclear weapons ten years down the line, which is the minimum time Iran requires as reported by an official U.S. intelligence report. Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf may just be playing into the hands of the U.S by portraying such an image and must remain cautious whilst talking on such sensitive matters which label Pakistan as an ‘amateur nuclear state’, which has no effective command and control system in place.
For the time being however, we seem destined to enter a new political phase in this country wherein a dictator is being pampered and facilitated by none others than the democratic representatives of this country. It is only through education of the masses and their economic prosperity that the people would understand the benefits of democracy and understand its significance and discard all collaborators who put themselves up as people’s representatives yet not in way which is in the collective interest of the people as opposed to their own interests. Democracy would take some time before its potential and benefits can be realized in this country. Absence of military interventions in the future would be useful in this regard. Similarly if the people are able to overcome the powerful bourgeois class in this country and break free from their economic enslavement, the cause of democracy would certainly be advanced as well.
(Concluded)
It was heartening to see the passion and resolve of lawyers representing their respective bar associations during the convention who seem bent upon restoring the judiciary which was dismissed in an arbitrary fashion by Musharraf, merely to seek the office of the President. There were no signs during the convention that the lawyers’ movement for the preservation of independence of judiciary had lost any momentum since the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was reinstated earlier this year.
It was brought to the notice of the audience by Hamid Khan, a prominent figure during the judicial crises and still is, that Munir Malik, former President, Supreme Court of Pakistan and also a counsel of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry along with Hamid Khan and some others, that Mr. Malik’s condition had not improved till date and not surprisingly the reason for his ailment seems to be contaminated juice which was provided to him during his imprisonment. The government is totally responsible for his ailment and foul play cannot be ruled out as it is indeed a police state, as it is now, and anything is possible. Munir Malik had, during the judicial crises earlier this year, defied all threats to his security and well being as well as his family’s and perhaps this was the right time to teach him a lesson.
The British High Commissioner had earlier this week stated that the issue of the reinstatement of the judiciary was unimportant to it as far as constitutional issues of Pakistan were concerned. He had further stated that the independence of the judiciary can be established by looking towards the future rather than the reinstatement of such judges. Similarly, the U.S. has overlooked the reinstatement issue. Clearly, the official position of both these countries conform to the views of Benazir Bhutto. At times however, she is willing to go a step beyond and offers something which is based on fictitious assumptions in a bid to gain leverage with such countries. Her statements on the nuclear program of this country are dangerous to say the least. She portrays Pakistan as a country where the extremists are a stone’s throw away from reaching the capital, Islamabad, which is far from being true. It was seen how the militants in Swat were advertised as a forecast for the rest of the country as well and then within days the military operation claims to have swept the valley clean of such elements. This was part of a script play of Musharraf from which she seeks to benefit even if something has to be built in the air. Musharraf would quite clearly be interested in displaying such an image of Pakistan to the rest of the world in order to present himself and the armed forces of this country the last hope for the West to contain extremism within this country. This however has the effect of enabling analysts to predict that a takeover of our nuclear assets by militants is a real possibility. It is an open invitation to the imperialist power of the world, the U.S. which considers itself as a global policeman, to prepare contingent plans of invasion of its forces into our sovereign country to secure these national assets.
The recent news relating to the disclosure of the handing over the blue prints of such a plan by Mr. Kagan, an architect of the U.S. invasion in Iraq, to none other than the supreme commander of the U.S. army and U.S. President, Mr. Bush should sound alarming bells in all quarters. We developed a strategic national asset which provides us with a ‘minimum deterrent’ vis a vis India which is a self-proclaimed enemy, yet seek to assist its destruction in these indirect ways. Perhaps Benazir Bhutto does not realize the repercussions of her assertions and lacks the great statesmanship and vision of her charismatic father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. It is unlikely however, considering that she has great experience in international relations and diplomatic overtures and policy statements and is therefore guilty of committing acts intentionally which is close to that of a traitor.
However, to seek mere personal gains, in her quest for power and gaining U.S. sympathy along with it, she is committing a greater sin than all her sins combined. Nothing equates to putting at risk the territorial sovereignty and valuable assets of a country and she must abandon such politics. She needs to draw a line between her personal interests and national interests which perhaps she deliberately seems to overlook on all such occasions. One needs not look far but the neighboring Iran to realize how difficult it is for the world to accept that a Muslim country is even prepared to make nuclear weapons ten years down the line, which is the minimum time Iran requires as reported by an official U.S. intelligence report. Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf may just be playing into the hands of the U.S by portraying such an image and must remain cautious whilst talking on such sensitive matters which label Pakistan as an ‘amateur nuclear state’, which has no effective command and control system in place.
For the time being however, we seem destined to enter a new political phase in this country wherein a dictator is being pampered and facilitated by none others than the democratic representatives of this country. It is only through education of the masses and their economic prosperity that the people would understand the benefits of democracy and understand its significance and discard all collaborators who put themselves up as people’s representatives yet not in way which is in the collective interest of the people as opposed to their own interests. Democracy would take some time before its potential and benefits can be realized in this country. Absence of military interventions in the future would be useful in this regard. Similarly if the people are able to overcome the powerful bourgeois class in this country and break free from their economic enslavement, the cause of democracy would certainly be advanced as well.
(Concluded)
Electoral games and manifestos
Except for PPP and JUI-F, no major opposition party seems to have ruled out the boycott option to undermine the credibility of the election process and thereby the whole system upon which Musharraf plans to build his structure of power in partnership with a new ally which he has discovered in Benazir Bhutto. Both these personalities have come together through an understanding sponsored by the U.S. The U.S. has snubbed the former general in the past over his efforts and ability to effectively command an armed force whose soldiers had been disillusioned in the war against terror which is a proxy war the U.S. is waging, ably assisted by our intelligence, logistical support and manpower in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan’s own territory. Although there is a need to eliminate the extremists in the northern part of the territory and elsewhere, there is a need to develop a national consensus, educate and provide social justice to the masses in order to make them understand the menace itself as well as develop a sense of participation amongst the citizens, who would not embrace such elements in the quest to find an alternative and just system. These elements often maintain peace in the captured territory and grant exemplary punishment to culprits of heinous crimes to gain local sympathy. How the Taliban managed to secure their objectives through this is a dangerous reminder to us all in this regard. We seemed to have abandoned all alternative measures which seek to go to the root of the problem.
Meanwhile, Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf look set to come closer in the future until one of them or both discover the need to discard the other over some issue which cannot be resolved through any channel including U.S. efforts. When that happens only time will tell but it is inevitable. We saw it in the past and we can expect something serious in the future. The events of October 18th and the backlash the regime had to face at the hands of Benazir Bhutto, who suspected foul play and a role of the intelligence in the blasts, is just an example. That was the only occasion when for the first time Benazir Bhutto sought to challenge the establishment since a dialogue between the former General and the PPP chairperson was initiated which culminated in a deal, a term of which included the use or rather misuse of the office of the President by Musharraf and the promulgation of NRO thereby enabling Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan.
As the foreign sponsored deal envisages a working relationship between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, all assertions by PPP that the boycott option was still open are misleading. This deal has in fact narrowed the options of Benazir Bhutto and for this reason as well as others she does not endorse the demand for the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary, let alone make it a pre condition for participation in the 2008 general elections. It is interesting to note that during the lawyers’ movement after the removal of the top judge, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Benazir Bhutto was cautious in supporting the cause of the movement which was for the independence of judiciary and lost an opportunity to demonstrate that her party believed in this principle. Instead, she was wary of the increasing popularity of the movement as well as the bold stance Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took and was instead more concerned about the repercussions it may have on the ‘deal’ which was in the final stages during that period. In fact she, like Musharraf, did not foresee that the legal fraternity would respond with such brevity and be joined by the civil society, students and people from all segments of the society.
It is interesting to note that Benazir Bhutto has added ‘equality’ amongst the five ‘e’s’ that her party has announced as election manifesto. Due to her failure to include the reinstatement of judges in her list of demands, one fails to understand how one can stand for equality whilst ignoring justice. Without an independent judiciary, it is hard to imagine a system where justice prevails. Regardless of the fact that she embraces ‘equality’ yet she, along with JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, stated that that they support an independent judiciary in future without any reference to the deposed judges. What one fails to understand is how this is possible when the very foundations of the independent judiciary lie in debris with the Musharraf assault last month. Independence of the judiciary is not a phenomenon which can be built sometime in the future by the solemn pledges of people like Benazir Bhutto. Independence of the judiciary is an evolutionary concept. If Benazir Bhutto thinks we can achieve it merely sometime in the future again by providing to the judiciary all the essential pre requisites like a fair appointment system (which is inconceivable considering the numerous judicial appointments to party sympathizers), security of tenure and the like she would be wrong. The deposed members of the judiciary had something more which allowed us to affiliate them with an independent judiciary which is required. That was a conscious mind, the embryo of which was planted through the impetus and resolve of the members of the bar, the black coated and officers of the law-the lawyers.
To defy logic itself, one needs to be illogical. And that’s what Benazir Bhutto has been doing to justify her opposition to a reinstatement. One such reason has been that since the deposed judges had took suo moto notice of the Lal Masjid issue and compensated its victims, how can she support the reinstatement? Of all the people, Benazir Bhutto would know this that the very judges who took such action as well as ordered release of detainees who were being held under no law are the part of the PCO-administered judiciary. It is therefore seriously doubted that she was not part of this grand conspiracy in collaboration with Musharraf to oust a judiciary which would declare the NRO illegal since it denied the very ‘equality’ that is part of her election manifesto as well as guaranteed under the national constitution to all citizens of this country. Now however, she seeks to gain the maximum from the Musharraf friendly judiciary which she backs and which would probably rediscover the doctrine of necessity to be applicable to the mass looting cases against her over which millions have been spent out of the taxpayer’s money. But who cares. It is national reconciliation and Benazir Bhutto enjoys support of the U.S. And everything is possible in this country once one has that.
(Continued....Election games and manifestos(2))
Meanwhile, Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf look set to come closer in the future until one of them or both discover the need to discard the other over some issue which cannot be resolved through any channel including U.S. efforts. When that happens only time will tell but it is inevitable. We saw it in the past and we can expect something serious in the future. The events of October 18th and the backlash the regime had to face at the hands of Benazir Bhutto, who suspected foul play and a role of the intelligence in the blasts, is just an example. That was the only occasion when for the first time Benazir Bhutto sought to challenge the establishment since a dialogue between the former General and the PPP chairperson was initiated which culminated in a deal, a term of which included the use or rather misuse of the office of the President by Musharraf and the promulgation of NRO thereby enabling Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan.
As the foreign sponsored deal envisages a working relationship between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, all assertions by PPP that the boycott option was still open are misleading. This deal has in fact narrowed the options of Benazir Bhutto and for this reason as well as others she does not endorse the demand for the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary, let alone make it a pre condition for participation in the 2008 general elections. It is interesting to note that during the lawyers’ movement after the removal of the top judge, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Benazir Bhutto was cautious in supporting the cause of the movement which was for the independence of judiciary and lost an opportunity to demonstrate that her party believed in this principle. Instead, she was wary of the increasing popularity of the movement as well as the bold stance Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took and was instead more concerned about the repercussions it may have on the ‘deal’ which was in the final stages during that period. In fact she, like Musharraf, did not foresee that the legal fraternity would respond with such brevity and be joined by the civil society, students and people from all segments of the society.
It is interesting to note that Benazir Bhutto has added ‘equality’ amongst the five ‘e’s’ that her party has announced as election manifesto. Due to her failure to include the reinstatement of judges in her list of demands, one fails to understand how one can stand for equality whilst ignoring justice. Without an independent judiciary, it is hard to imagine a system where justice prevails. Regardless of the fact that she embraces ‘equality’ yet she, along with JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, stated that that they support an independent judiciary in future without any reference to the deposed judges. What one fails to understand is how this is possible when the very foundations of the independent judiciary lie in debris with the Musharraf assault last month. Independence of the judiciary is not a phenomenon which can be built sometime in the future by the solemn pledges of people like Benazir Bhutto. Independence of the judiciary is an evolutionary concept. If Benazir Bhutto thinks we can achieve it merely sometime in the future again by providing to the judiciary all the essential pre requisites like a fair appointment system (which is inconceivable considering the numerous judicial appointments to party sympathizers), security of tenure and the like she would be wrong. The deposed members of the judiciary had something more which allowed us to affiliate them with an independent judiciary which is required. That was a conscious mind, the embryo of which was planted through the impetus and resolve of the members of the bar, the black coated and officers of the law-the lawyers.
To defy logic itself, one needs to be illogical. And that’s what Benazir Bhutto has been doing to justify her opposition to a reinstatement. One such reason has been that since the deposed judges had took suo moto notice of the Lal Masjid issue and compensated its victims, how can she support the reinstatement? Of all the people, Benazir Bhutto would know this that the very judges who took such action as well as ordered release of detainees who were being held under no law are the part of the PCO-administered judiciary. It is therefore seriously doubted that she was not part of this grand conspiracy in collaboration with Musharraf to oust a judiciary which would declare the NRO illegal since it denied the very ‘equality’ that is part of her election manifesto as well as guaranteed under the national constitution to all citizens of this country. Now however, she seeks to gain the maximum from the Musharraf friendly judiciary which she backs and which would probably rediscover the doctrine of necessity to be applicable to the mass looting cases against her over which millions have been spent out of the taxpayer’s money. But who cares. It is national reconciliation and Benazir Bhutto enjoys support of the U.S. And everything is possible in this country once one has that.
(Continued....Election games and manifestos(2))
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Adios General Musharraf
Adios General Musharraf
General Musharraf has finally handed over the ‘coveted’ post of Chief of Army Staff to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in accordance with his pledge to the nation to do so. It is pertinent to mention here that he had promised to doff his uniform in the past as well but failed to uphold it so this time round when he decided yet again to retire from the army there were still some voices which questioned whether he would keep his word or not. It is true that the circumstances which led him to take the decision ultimately included a growing discontent in the country as well as international isolation, especially following the imposition of martial law in the garb of emergency in the country and the suspension of the Constitution by the former general earlier this month.
The office of Chief of Army Staff has been the real strength of support for the former general which allowed him to suspend the Constitution twice (illegally, which goes without saying) with the sole purpose of holding onto power. What he probably realized but ignored was that by doing so, he has allowed critics to once more label Pakistan as a failed state in which no supreme law of the land or the constitution existed. Due to the usurpation of his powers, he was able to control the legislative and executive process in this country yet insisted that democracy existed and the government was functioning in accordance with-- the then not suspended Constitution. The Parliament which was functioning under his command had nominal powers and the opportunity to debate on important legislation was never really made available to it through the hasty, yet numerous pieces of Ordinances issued by General Musharraf, using the Presidential office for this purpose.
Visibly filled with emotions, the former general conceded that this was a sad moment in his life after his long affiliation with the army for almost half a decade. He accepted the fact that everything must come to an end one day. If only he had realized and acted upon this fact much long ago, he would not have been as emotional on the day of retirement. Pakistan would have been much better off if, in accordance with the law and rules, he had retired from the armed forces many years ago upon reaching the requisite age, just like other functionaries of the State are bound to do. His continuation in office beyond the stipulated time, apart from all the other harms that were inflicted on Pakistan, also meant that many others who were eligible to become the Chief of Army Staff went home without having an opportunity to take up the top post, which is not the property of any one general but merely an office of trust to be held by the one who is eligible.
Musharraf has now taken another oath as ‘President’ for another 5 years. All 33 members of APDM, minus the JUI-F whose credibility has been in serious doubt over the past few years, have announced the boycott of elections if judges who refused to take oath under the PCO are not restored. Since it was only the new judiciary which allowed him to become the President, it is unlikely that this demand would be met without resistance, if at all, by Musharraf as the judges who refused to take the oath were more loyal to the Constitution and the law of the land than to his personal aspirations to become President. This principled stance of APDM is most welcome since any compromise by the people’s representatives on the derogation of constitution would mean that in effect it would help the regime claim that the illegal order is indeed a valid order. It is being asserted by the PPP, which has a substantial following in the country that it does not want to boycott the polls since it would enable the king’s party-PML (Q) a sweeping victory in the elections. This logic, although compelling in the light of what happened to the PPP during the 1985 boycott of elections, is not applicable to the present case because the political and constitutional scenario is totally different. In the present situation, what is being asserted is the restoration of the judges and the constitutional order prior to November 3, 2007 on which almost all major political parties minus PPP and JUI-F stand united. There was no similar manifesto or objective of PPP in 1985 when it boycotted the elections and therefore to apply the precedent to the present case would be misleading. The present case is one of constitutional supremacy and national interest rather than the holding of free and fair elections, which was the primary reason for the 1985 boycott by PPP.
The real purpose for participation by the PPP in the forthcoming elections is very different. It is clear that Benazir Bhutto, who has been spending fortunes for uplifting her image in the Western world, has come to Pakistan with a purpose and a guideline which has been given to her by her benefactors-primarily the US. If one goes through her statements over the past few months and even goes back to about a year, her one point which interestingly is present on all occasions is her assertion that she has the ability and the means to serve the US in supporting the war on terror in Pakistan. The US has been somewhat disappointed with the ability of the Pakistani Army to provide intelligence as well as carry out operations successfully which it perceives is mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, Musharraf’s affiliation with politics meant that he could not perform his task as the supreme commander of the armed forces in dealing with strategic operations as well as controlling the pro-Taliban elements within the army itself. Secondly, the increasing isolation of Musharraf in the eyes of the Pakistani public, including the moderates who initially supported him means that in effect one day or the other Musharraf’s downfall was inevitable in the eyes of U.S., especially post March 9, 2007 and the discontent against Musharraf’s action and rule by all segments of the society.
In this background, it is interesting to note that the new Chief of Army Staff who has been coined as a moderate, with whom the U.S. can work with in the ‘war on terror’, has also worked with the Benazir Bhutto government previously. It is no secret that the armed forces have despised Benazir Bhutto’s rule ever since Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged. However, in order for a stable and ‘more democratic’ Pakistan under Benazir Bhutto, the U.S. needed an officer in command of the armed forces who had some kind of understanding with Benazir Bhutto so that no new challenge would be posed to her rule. General Ashafaq Kiani was the answer. It is not doubted that he must be an excellent soldier and officer as his credentials are clear on this, but it takes more than that to become the Chief of Army Staff of one of the most disciplined force of the world, which nevertheless has an inclination for the political field as well which can also be termed as the highest act of indiscipline. However, this has only been done at the instance of a few rogue generals who inadvertently also saw in themselves somewhat more than what they swore their oath of allegiance on and through a ‘divine revelation’ declare themselves as the saviors of the nation and destroy all institutions along with the sacred trust of the nation—the Constitution itself.
It would be no surprise if PPP holds onto its position for Benazir Bhutto owes something to the West for the favour it bestowed upon it by enabling her to return to Pakistan as well as making the promulgation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance possible. In addition, she cannot afford to go full out for the demand for restoration of judiciary since it had seemed likely that the very same judges of the apex court were bound to declare the NRO as an illegal piece of law which applied discriminately in her favour, something which rules of natural justice and law cannot accomodate. Furthermore, as the new judiciary installed by Musharraf is more likely to be dictated by him post-PCO oath, Benazir Bhutto would gain more personally if she does not press the demand for restoration of judiciary in return for the new ‘judiciary’ validating the NRO in her favour under another understanding or ‘deal’. Personally she has lots to gain. However, as a trustee of the people she represents, the people have a lot to loose if this were to happen which seems likely. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
One hopes nevertheless that the civil society, students and the lawyers would continue the struggle for the restoration of the pre November 3 situation, in partnership with all political parties who hold such condition as an essential pre requisite prior to their participation in any affair of the State, be they elections or otherwise which may provide legitimacy to the illegal ‘new order’ of Musharraf. If any of the political parties or group acquiesce with the illegal order, history would never forget such misdemeanor and only time would prove that the decision of APDM was right, although the success of its objectives largely depends upon how far the nation is willing to sacrifice to protect the sociological order which not only guarantees its freedom but affiliates it with the civilized world order in the form of the Constitution and distinguishes it from an uncivilized one where rule of men rather than rule of law prevails.
General Musharraf has finally handed over the ‘coveted’ post of Chief of Army Staff to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in accordance with his pledge to the nation to do so. It is pertinent to mention here that he had promised to doff his uniform in the past as well but failed to uphold it so this time round when he decided yet again to retire from the army there were still some voices which questioned whether he would keep his word or not. It is true that the circumstances which led him to take the decision ultimately included a growing discontent in the country as well as international isolation, especially following the imposition of martial law in the garb of emergency in the country and the suspension of the Constitution by the former general earlier this month.
The office of Chief of Army Staff has been the real strength of support for the former general which allowed him to suspend the Constitution twice (illegally, which goes without saying) with the sole purpose of holding onto power. What he probably realized but ignored was that by doing so, he has allowed critics to once more label Pakistan as a failed state in which no supreme law of the land or the constitution existed. Due to the usurpation of his powers, he was able to control the legislative and executive process in this country yet insisted that democracy existed and the government was functioning in accordance with-- the then not suspended Constitution. The Parliament which was functioning under his command had nominal powers and the opportunity to debate on important legislation was never really made available to it through the hasty, yet numerous pieces of Ordinances issued by General Musharraf, using the Presidential office for this purpose.
Visibly filled with emotions, the former general conceded that this was a sad moment in his life after his long affiliation with the army for almost half a decade. He accepted the fact that everything must come to an end one day. If only he had realized and acted upon this fact much long ago, he would not have been as emotional on the day of retirement. Pakistan would have been much better off if, in accordance with the law and rules, he had retired from the armed forces many years ago upon reaching the requisite age, just like other functionaries of the State are bound to do. His continuation in office beyond the stipulated time, apart from all the other harms that were inflicted on Pakistan, also meant that many others who were eligible to become the Chief of Army Staff went home without having an opportunity to take up the top post, which is not the property of any one general but merely an office of trust to be held by the one who is eligible.
Musharraf has now taken another oath as ‘President’ for another 5 years. All 33 members of APDM, minus the JUI-F whose credibility has been in serious doubt over the past few years, have announced the boycott of elections if judges who refused to take oath under the PCO are not restored. Since it was only the new judiciary which allowed him to become the President, it is unlikely that this demand would be met without resistance, if at all, by Musharraf as the judges who refused to take the oath were more loyal to the Constitution and the law of the land than to his personal aspirations to become President. This principled stance of APDM is most welcome since any compromise by the people’s representatives on the derogation of constitution would mean that in effect it would help the regime claim that the illegal order is indeed a valid order. It is being asserted by the PPP, which has a substantial following in the country that it does not want to boycott the polls since it would enable the king’s party-PML (Q) a sweeping victory in the elections. This logic, although compelling in the light of what happened to the PPP during the 1985 boycott of elections, is not applicable to the present case because the political and constitutional scenario is totally different. In the present situation, what is being asserted is the restoration of the judges and the constitutional order prior to November 3, 2007 on which almost all major political parties minus PPP and JUI-F stand united. There was no similar manifesto or objective of PPP in 1985 when it boycotted the elections and therefore to apply the precedent to the present case would be misleading. The present case is one of constitutional supremacy and national interest rather than the holding of free and fair elections, which was the primary reason for the 1985 boycott by PPP.
The real purpose for participation by the PPP in the forthcoming elections is very different. It is clear that Benazir Bhutto, who has been spending fortunes for uplifting her image in the Western world, has come to Pakistan with a purpose and a guideline which has been given to her by her benefactors-primarily the US. If one goes through her statements over the past few months and even goes back to about a year, her one point which interestingly is present on all occasions is her assertion that she has the ability and the means to serve the US in supporting the war on terror in Pakistan. The US has been somewhat disappointed with the ability of the Pakistani Army to provide intelligence as well as carry out operations successfully which it perceives is mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, Musharraf’s affiliation with politics meant that he could not perform his task as the supreme commander of the armed forces in dealing with strategic operations as well as controlling the pro-Taliban elements within the army itself. Secondly, the increasing isolation of Musharraf in the eyes of the Pakistani public, including the moderates who initially supported him means that in effect one day or the other Musharraf’s downfall was inevitable in the eyes of U.S., especially post March 9, 2007 and the discontent against Musharraf’s action and rule by all segments of the society.
In this background, it is interesting to note that the new Chief of Army Staff who has been coined as a moderate, with whom the U.S. can work with in the ‘war on terror’, has also worked with the Benazir Bhutto government previously. It is no secret that the armed forces have despised Benazir Bhutto’s rule ever since Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged. However, in order for a stable and ‘more democratic’ Pakistan under Benazir Bhutto, the U.S. needed an officer in command of the armed forces who had some kind of understanding with Benazir Bhutto so that no new challenge would be posed to her rule. General Ashafaq Kiani was the answer. It is not doubted that he must be an excellent soldier and officer as his credentials are clear on this, but it takes more than that to become the Chief of Army Staff of one of the most disciplined force of the world, which nevertheless has an inclination for the political field as well which can also be termed as the highest act of indiscipline. However, this has only been done at the instance of a few rogue generals who inadvertently also saw in themselves somewhat more than what they swore their oath of allegiance on and through a ‘divine revelation’ declare themselves as the saviors of the nation and destroy all institutions along with the sacred trust of the nation—the Constitution itself.
It would be no surprise if PPP holds onto its position for Benazir Bhutto owes something to the West for the favour it bestowed upon it by enabling her to return to Pakistan as well as making the promulgation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance possible. In addition, she cannot afford to go full out for the demand for restoration of judiciary since it had seemed likely that the very same judges of the apex court were bound to declare the NRO as an illegal piece of law which applied discriminately in her favour, something which rules of natural justice and law cannot accomodate. Furthermore, as the new judiciary installed by Musharraf is more likely to be dictated by him post-PCO oath, Benazir Bhutto would gain more personally if she does not press the demand for restoration of judiciary in return for the new ‘judiciary’ validating the NRO in her favour under another understanding or ‘deal’. Personally she has lots to gain. However, as a trustee of the people she represents, the people have a lot to loose if this were to happen which seems likely. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
One hopes nevertheless that the civil society, students and the lawyers would continue the struggle for the restoration of the pre November 3 situation, in partnership with all political parties who hold such condition as an essential pre requisite prior to their participation in any affair of the State, be they elections or otherwise which may provide legitimacy to the illegal ‘new order’ of Musharraf. If any of the political parties or group acquiesce with the illegal order, history would never forget such misdemeanor and only time would prove that the decision of APDM was right, although the success of its objectives largely depends upon how far the nation is willing to sacrifice to protect the sociological order which not only guarantees its freedom but affiliates it with the civilized world order in the form of the Constitution and distinguishes it from an uncivilized one where rule of men rather than rule of law prevails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
