Time to quit Mr. Musharraf

February 18 has turned out to be a test of the popularity of the previous governmental setup led by Parvez Musharraf as well as the former general himself. Surveys released by International Republican Institute as well as other credible polling experts had predicted before the elections that Mr. Musharraf was extremely unpopular and many wanted him to quit. However, these surveys were termed as yet another conspiracy by the ‘enemies of Pakistan’ who were working under their own ‘ulterior motives’ and were ‘far from ground realities’ by Musharraf himself. However, the people of Pakistan have by and large voted against him and it should be readily accepted by him that the only hurdle towards his ‘transition to democracy’ is no other person than himself. Rejecting calls for resignation however, he has gone back on his promise to resign if he does not receive the requisite support after the February 18 elections.

It is unbelievable that such an unpopular person is still at the helm of affairs as the head of state. He could in future attempt to manipulate the mandate of the people by trying to coerce the national assembly into submission on any conceivable issue. With powers to dissolve the national assembly (yet to be confirmed by the Assembly however), a product of the will of the people, in the hands of an unpopular person makes the whole edifice of democracy illusory.

This is just the tip of the iceberg however. The looming issues of the independence of the judiciary through the reinstatement of judges of conscience who seemed to be the only fearless bread of their kind who had the courage and stature to be termed as independent is a personal issue for Mr. Musharraf who has rejected all such calls. The Pakistan Peoples Party has, post-elections, continued to assert that reinstatement is not the only option to restore the independence of the judiciary and the same can be achieved prospectively through a new system of appointment of judges in the future. Pakistan Muslim League (N) on the other hand supports the popular demand of restoring the judges which is the only option to claim that the judiciary is indeed independent.

Throughout the election campaigning and rallies, Pakistan People’s Party has made the reinstatement demand, only to back out in the wake of increased U.S. pressure on its leaders. It is no secret that the U.S. sponsored the return of late Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan and no doubt received certain assurances that Mr. Musharraf would be allowed to retain some control of state affairs. Mr. Musharraf has proved to be a tried and tested friend of the U.S. and therefore his presence on the scene is necessary to achieve the aims the U.S. has for Pakistan, especially the fate of the tribal areas which has been severely savaged by brutal battles between Pakistan Army and tribal militants. The collateral damage, which includes loss of life and destruction of many others as well as loss of habitat and an absence of a compensation or rehabilitation effort by the government, has alienated the local populace in these areas. However, the U.S. is adamant that its own interests are paramount and the ‘war on terror’ must be dealt with severely with an iron fist and any innocent blood which flows or any dwellings which are destroyed are meaningless to it.

The newly elected people, who are now leading their respective parties in the National Assembly feel differently however. They want all avenues to be explored including an effort to engage the local tribal leaders as well as the militants themselves. However, there must not be any repetition of previous cease fires which led to nothing but a strengthening of the capabilities of the militants who used the time period to reinforce their supplies as well as manpower and are now in a position to use their command and control system, which is highly sophisticated and are disciplined enough to carry out terror attacks beyond the troubled province of NWFP.

The issue of dealing with miscreants and militants is likely to be a contentious issue between Musharraf, who would dictate the U.S. line and hope for reciprocal support to hold on to power and the parliamentarians who are seasoned politicians who must be given a chance to act independent of foreign pressure and in the best of national interest, as they perceive it.

These are only some of the issues in which common ground between, on one hand, a man, who has severely lost his credibility as well as mass support and on the other a body of elected representatives who gauge the public mood better than anyone else at the moment.

Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Muslim League (N) must unite to form a strong coalition which can defeat any threat to the sovereignty of parliament as well as reverse the gains towards achieving democracy. Lawyers, as well as other segments of the society including students as well as public in general, understand the importance of the need to restore the judges to establish an independent judiciary. Leaders of Pakistan Peoples Party would be fools to believe otherwise. If the party is unable to come up to the expectations in this regard, apart from the addition of a black spot in its party charter, history would never forget this blunder. What the party must realize and understand is that the time to receive foreign dictations must come to an end. An independent foreign policy as well as domestic handling of affairs in consonance with national interest rather than external pressures would do well to unite the people of this country as well as give Pakistan a respectable place in the region.

United, the PPP and PML(N) can handle the difficult times ahead. If they cannot come together, this would benefit the ones who have long asserted that Pakistan cannot be ruled through democracy. Disagreements between politicians and mass unrest, although justified when necessary, must not be allowed to provide an opportunity for the kingmakers in Pakistan, who work behind closed doors and closely monitor signs ripe for their intervention and capitulation of the situation. If PPP and PML(N) decide to reinstate the judiciary and accept it to be unavoidable for achieving democracy, there is no power which can stop this from happening, not even those who are thousands of miles away but are most interested in the state of affairs here. For once, politics must give way to national interest and strengthening democracy through independence of the judiciary, without which democracy cannot be sustained in Pakistan.

Mr. Musharraf needs to prove that Pakistan does indeed comes first. He would go down in history with that slogan of ‘Pakistan first’ only if he makes a wise decision which does not reflect his personal interest. He would also be remembered for only the second person, after Yahya Khan to supervise free and fair elections (at least in general). He would better the record of Yahya Khan however if he were to resign as then he would have acted early enough to prevent a disaster unlike Yahya Khan who held on until it was too late. His continuation in office would do nothing to increase his popularity. Not even another 9/11 is likely to save him now. PPP must not provide the breathing space he is looking for.

Start of a new era?

The next week would not be just another week in our history. It kicks off with elections which have been promised to bring the light of ‘real democracy’ to this country, alas once again from the shadows of the military khakis.

With the exception of the surrender of the armed forces of Pakistan in 1971, which severely lowered the image of the armed forces in its own eyes as well as humiliation in general public, never before had the armed forces’ support in the public been at such low levels. The time had eventually come for the military to retire to its role of defending the country instead of engaging in politics and undermining both politics and an effective defence capability.

General Ashfaq Kayani, the new Chief of Armed Forces has undertaken a commitment to reaffirm the loyalty of the brave soldiers this country is known for, to the task at hand at a moment where we find ourselves in the greatest internal disturbances coupled with complications with our sworn enemies and ‘allies’ alike. Clever to gauge the public opinion as well as understanding the importance of ‘people’s support’ for the armed forces, he has recalled all serving officers in civilian departments in order to dispel the negative perception of the armed forces amongst people of this country as well as negate foreign concerns that the armed forces do not have either the desire or ability to contain the insurgency in the tribal belt of this country in the ‘war against Al-Qaeda’. It is thought that his efforts would result in greater command and control over the operations launched against militancy in these areas as well as inspire an operational maneuverability if and when required. This process was necessary to de-politicize the most disciplined institution of Pakistan which was nevertheless being perceived as ‘ill-disciplined’ due to the blunders of a few rogue generals through collaboration with a highly receptive bureaucracy.

However, there are no promises for the future that will bind prospective generals to follow the dicta of General Kayani and restrain their inhibitions towards a military solution of a coup and overthrow of civilian regimes. Only time would tell whether dictatorship has been buried forever or would just lay dormant pending an opportunity to reoccupy the corridors of power and divert from its constitutional role of defending against threats, which are more severe and immediate than at any previous occasion in the history of modern Pakistan.

With regards to the election itself, though many reservations have been shown by foreign analysts and local politicians alike, some of whom even having distanced themselves from the process as being a sham, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. PML(N)’s demand for the restoration of judges places it at the top of the list of political parties bent upon changing the status quo and revolutionizing the independence of the judiciary which can only be done if the pre-November 3 judiciary is restored. Lawyers all over the country have ensured that the significance of the actions which was a result of an illegal act (of ‘martial law’ of November 3) is not lost in the midst of the elections.

Although optimistic even to this point in time when many would have surrendered to economic constraints, the lawyers continue to overshadow all civil libertarian groups in a quest to achieve the difficult yet attainable task of burying the ‘doctrine of necessity’, which justifies and legalizes constitutional deviations, once and for all. At the same time, they are wary that any concession on the issue would mean that in future, there would be a huge disadvantage for judges who would avoid stating the obvious-the constitution cannot be deviated from in such arbitrary manner.

Let us hope that politicians learn from their past mistake and are able and willing to move across their differences and form national solidarity in a turbulent situation and not abuse the delegated authority of the people. Only in democracy lies Pakistan’s national interest and the road towards progress and prosperity as well as a solution towards the tribal insurgency. Military is incapable of taking both politics and defence hand in hand. British Field Marshall Lord Montgomery famously said in 1956: “War is a very rough game, but I think politics is worse.”

Any justification for deviations to this basic norm deserves criticism and denunciation. A couple of examples from the West are illustrious of the weakness of the argument to use constitutional deviation to support national interest as it is often dubbed.

Although the British desperately needed a change of tactics and someone at the helm of affairs at the height of World War II to fight the war graciously and reach a just end, it was only through the civilian corridors of power that an ex service man, Winston Churchill broke the normal ranks of political acumen and led the nation to a success in WWII as a civilian Prime Minister. As opposed to Pakistan where the official version states that November 3 actions were taken to suppress terrorism, the British army officers did not, even for a moment, about a possible coup which would allow it to control greater leverage and control of the country in a war which threatened the great colonialist power. Similarly, the U.S., although responding harshly to 9/11, which killed thousands in WTO, did not consider a military takeover as an option to safeguard ‘its national interest. For Pakistan to say so sounds as much absurd to ourselves as to others. A new start must be taken on February 18, 2007 and bitter rivalries over the past forgotten, lest we be placed amongst nations with ideological grounds but unable to guide the country towards realization of Quaid’s vision of a strong Pakistan where civilian rule is the order of the day. An autocrat returns us to the miserable days of colonialism. It was the isolationist approach of the British and Congress of India which led feelings of mistrust grow in the days preceding partition, We must strive to eliminate such feelings, which serve nobody but enemies of the state bent upon destruction of nationhood and federation in the country and leads towards provincial politics, nationalism and breakdown of the country.

Why the West cares little about the reinstatement of judiciary

It has not come as a surprise that United Kingdom as well as United States have failed to date to support the demand for the restoration of judges of the superior courts. This is so notwithstanding the high level of ‘democracy’ and ‘rule of law’ in both the countries where judges are symbols of upholding these notions and custodians of the rights of the people arising therein.

There are several main reasons for this anamoly when it comes to advocating these notions in Pakistan from both the U.S. and U.K. which are common and shared as U.K. interests are often seen to be interwined to those of the U.S. in this country. Firstly, and the more commonly known, is the Musharraf factor. President Musharraf, owes his presidency to the removal of the ‘judges of conscience’ who would have said the obvious and declared him ineligible to hold the presidential office whilst remaining chief of army staff as well, as he then was. This would have, in effect resulted in loss of power in his person, who is a self-professed ally of the West in every sphere be that in the domestic field or foreign affairs. The U.S. and the U.K. believe, which is in part due to Musharraf’s actions nevertheless, that post-Musharraf Pakistan is too uncertain to be risked for the sake of ‘democracy’ and ‘rule of law’.

Secondly and quite importantly, an independent judiciary threatened to end all illegal executive actions of Musharraf and his followers in the establishment which would have included the very infamous detention of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, considered to be unconscionable and unjust by many. This would have been possible as reports suggest that Dr. Khan was considering moving the apex court against his detention and house arrest and it is likely that in the absence of a law sanctioning such detention (which is non-existent to date) he would have been set free. This would have enraged the U.S. as it considers Dr. Khan as its worst nightmare, if free as already his role in nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea has caused the country embarrassment. The issue is very sensitive to the U.S. and cannot be ignored. Additionally, a free Dr. Khan would have posed the danger of opening the Pandora box of nuclear proliferation and it is likely that some high profile names from the army or intelligence would have been exposed who may have benefited from such cash for nukes deal (designs and blueprints as opposed to ready-to-use bombs). It is considered by many unlikely that the metallurgist would have been able to sell the secrets to a foreign country without active participation or assistance of other figures who wish not to be exposed now for their role in the proliferation.

Thirdly, an independent judiciary would have also persisted with enforcing the rights of ‘missing persons’ to be with their families and not be confined in an arbitrary manner in the way they are presently. As a necessary corollary, any handing over of Pakistanis to the U.S. where they often end up in the notorious Guantanamo bay, would have been checked and the exercise stopped. Natural justice demands that all Pakistanis be treated according to the law of the land and the government be restrained from just ‘banishing’ such citizens to ‘land of hell’ in an arbitrary manner to receive personal ‘bounties’ as well as remain in the good books of the United States. The U.S. government, although being checked by the judiciary of late, has been consistent in violating its own laws in this regard and has tried to avoid the jurisdictional issue by placing persons under its control in captivity in Guantanamo bay in violation of all rights of POWs subject to all forms of torture and degradation. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to take the U.S. government to task over this as it has already reached landmark judgments on the issue and is set to decide on another important case this year. However, the U.S. government would be quite content and in fact pleased with any country like Pakistan which has no such active Supreme Court to block the extradition of its own nationals to it to be put in Guantanomo bay.

Fourthly, an independent judiciary would have derailed the process of reconciliation sponsored by the West between the Musharraf regime and late Benazir Bhutto which culminated in the issuance of the National Reconciliation Ordinance. Needless to say, as already pointed out many times before by analysts, such a discriminatory piece of legislation would have failed the test of ‘equality before the law’ and would have been declared illegal by the ‘judges of conscience’ as was being predicted earlier in the pre-November 3 hearing of the case. However, now as things stand, the hearing of the same case has been put off for the last week of February, thus allowing the authorities to enforce the fulfillment of the deal by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari post-elections. It goes without saying that any deviation on his side may result in the NRO being struck out altogether and the reopening of certain files that Mr. Zardari may not be content upon.

Finally, an independent judiciary is necessary for the accomplishment of democracy. However, as opposed to the public policy enunciated by the U.S. in favour of democracy, it shall be more than pleased that a sham one exists in the absence of an independent judiciary which allows it to avoid the restrictions of public perceptions in Pakistan and do what it wants in U.S. national interest, extracting the maximum price from countries such as Pakistan.
These inherent contradictions are only some, which help explain why the U.S. and U.K has not expressed a single word of condemnation for Musharraf’s act of November 3 which led to removal of more than 50 judges of this country. Why else would they put pressure on the government for ‘free and fair’ elections yet not insist for an independent judiciary (which seems possible only through reinstatement) which is necessary for free and fair elections and the road to democracy?

It is hoping against hope to expect for the aforesaid reasons that any summersault on the issue is expected. The best one can hope for is that the process is reversed by any means possible. Although it rests on the shoulders of all political parties to correct the situation or to try to correct it, vested interests of Mr. Zardari of PPP makes him hostage to the situation. In the absence of any other mainstream political party, PML(N) remains the only party where all hope lies. However, unlikely to secure a clear cut majority it seems a Herculean task at the moment but in the event we are able to achieve it, Musharraf would be proved wrong when he said that the environment of this country is neither apt nor suitable to adopt the libertarian principles of democracy and rule of law that the U.S. and U.K has inherent in its system and which allows it to be placed amongst civilized nations.

Tough times home and abroad

It has been a different trip for Musharraf, when he took off for his Western ‘friends’ who have given him a ‘cold shoulder’ this time and have linked future aid with free and fair elections that his regime has promised to hold. However disturbing realities point towards rigging, which is designed to favour the members of PML(Q)—the most favourite of Musharraf himself.
As the armed forces of the country have finally launched a large scale operation as opposed to mere ‘deployment’ which was evident previously, the prospects of some face-saving seem likely especially so in the background of advances made by the army as well as successive defense of a strategic tunnel-the Pakistan-Japanese Friendship tunnel. Not only this, they have been able to recover some of the trucks of ammunition that went missing after militants had outsmarted some personnel of the armed forces and controlled some trucks full of enough ammunition which reportedly were sufficient for militants for two years (according to estimates by Daily Times, Editorial).
However the armed forces had to suffer casualties as well when 13 of its soldiers were found beheaded—a brutal method adopted by militants with no element of justice meted out to prisoners of such battles who should be treated as prisoners of war should be. However, headed under a more acceptable army chief and in the absence of any political commitment on his part promises to lift the morale of the armed forces in this self-inflicted ‘war on terror’ and his effort to reach out to every soldier under his command in an attempt to rationalize the task ahead for the armed forces and its responsibility. This strategy or more like reaffirmation of the role of every soldier as part of this sacred institution is already paying some rich dividends.
The renunciation of any political role for the armed forces by General Kiani was also a positive step in this regard. Political involvement of the army has necessarily meant disengagement from the task of defending the country from integration both within and from outside and also confuses the soldier who is unable to perform his duty with conviction. This is especially so when the hands of the armed forces are tainted with politics and the corruption and inefficiency that is a by-product of it which exposes it to criticisms from all segments of the society as well as neglects vital interests of the state.
It is this very separation of duties which the West was convinced was necessary to provide a fresh impetus to the armed forces and coupled with the domestic pressure in the wake of the lawyers’ movement, there was no option for Musharraf but to don his uniform.
However, now the West looks towards the electoral process of Pakistan to be carried out in the same way that it has set standards for itself. Without any doubt only this can accomplish the ‘mission’ Musharraf has set often dubbing it as his ‘third transition towards democracy’. How can one say for sure that provided, that Musharraf goes on to democratization of Pakistan (one doubts his sincerity in doing so by acquiescing to rigging), another usurper in the future may not interrupt it just as Musharraf did and set new goals to be achieved which leads towards ‘real democracy’ as perceived by the prospective usurper? This is where Musharraf’s illegal coup of 1999 is bound to get exposed as nothing short of an obsession with real politics and a political role for himself and hence the armed forces of this country. There is no justification when the only criterion for intervention is the subjective interpretation of that individual to the concept ‘national interest’ which lacks any formal representation over those governed and hence is illegitimate and unjust right at the outset. Institutions are by-passed and the defects of one-man rule and lack of accountability as well as lack of participation of representatives of people in policy formulation and implementation phase reflects in an ‘all-crises’ situation in Pakistan, the energy crises being the best example in this context.
At the peak of his power after forming his government in the wake of breakdown of Pakistan, Bhutto was wise enough to proclaim openly that dictatorship had not died in Pakistan with the fall of Yahya Khan--the second military ruler to interfere in purely civilian task of running the state. This was so, even when the army had lost its prestige and respect both within and from the outside, and a political role for it in the near future at least seemed unlikely. However, Bhutto was unfortunate enough when the worse came true and Zia ul Haq these odds and emerged to the power scene and hung his very ‘mohsin’ (someone to whom one owes a lot), a term used by himself for Bhutto.
It is interesting to see former generals who had interfered in the political process in the past denounce their previous steps and apologized to the nation. Although some may suggest that the apology has come a bit too late but if sincerity is not an issue, the timing can be forgiven. There was a possibility that these former generals could have done so earlier possibly during the zenith of power of a now weakened Musharraf but perhaps the provocation by Musharraf who had previously termed such personnel as if all of them were discarded incompetent bunch of collaborators led them to say openly what they had always accepted yet not admitted openly by their words and actions.
If only the armed forces could concentrate on sole issues which fall within their ambit, the country would continue to suffer from the ills that are rarely addressed in the manner that they should-by representatives of this country themselves. Without such an approach of restraint and refusal to obey illegal coup orders by all the high command of the armed forces, Pakistan would continue to fall in the dark abyss while our neigbours prosper at the cost of our own security and well-being as a sovereign nation. We are already far behind in every sphere and must not childishly insist that democracy in Pakistan cannot be equated to the liberal concepts and standards the West have set themselves (as Musharraf has said so rather naively) and cling to medieval times but must instead look towards the future where this generation and the ones to follow can find a better Pakistan, where institutions flourish and accountability is seen at all times and at levels, be that deviation of the constitution by usurpers or mis-governance by civilian administration. Only can norms such as these be firmly enrooted and understood by most of the populace as well as the stakeholders who may be tempted to encroach their duty, can we claim to have entered the twenty first century in reality with full confidence and power of the people behind it.