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.
No comments:
Post a Comment