The fallacy of dictatorships

Ever since the days of Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military usurper, dictators have strived to give the populace an impression that they simply had come to power in order to control an ‘inevitable breakdown in law and order’ and acting in the national interest had become unavoidable. The abrogation of the constitution is then justified. Ayub Khan termed it as ‘Revolution’ when it was all but a revolution in nature with little element of mass support behind a move necessitated due to personal ambitions and inhibitions he was unable to resist in a chance to gain control of the country as well as allow himself to become a member of one of the twenty two rich families identified by Dr. Mahboob ul Haq, who amassed the collective wealth and resources of the country.

In the quest to remain the ultimate kings for a long time to come, such dictators often introduce their own version of ‘democracy’ which is usually delivered in stages. Politicians, many of whom either lack self-confidence in their abilities to inspire confidence in people and lack mass support or breach the trust of people they represent, shrewdly provide such ‘benign military dictators’ with the necessary cushion which helps diffuse the natural tension apparent between them and the populace due to the lack of participation of the people in the process of governance. The PML(Q) is the latest in line of such ‘political organizations’ which lack mass support but are nevertheless proactively nurtured by the establishment which provides a nest to their breeding in more than one ways. In the same way, the religious parties have been more consistent in doing so and the present JUI-F headed by Maulana Fazlur Rehman is testament to this.

Ayub Khan introduced amongst others, his ‘Basic Democracy’ which did all but what the name actually means. It was a way to conveniently reduce the number of people eligible to exercise their right of suffrage to a negligible percentage of the overall adult franchise in the country. Similarly, Zia-ul-Haq played with the people by introducing his own system which disqualified political parties in a bid to prevent People’s Party from coming into power and challenging his rule as well as call for his head for abrogating the constitution- which is an act of high treason. Zia-ul-Haq was probably provided with natural justice whereas Ayub Khan was humiliated and shot at in Peshawar by one of his opponents in the wake of a serious uprising against his rule before he finally decided to call it a day in the wake of his declining health.

When former general Musharraf came into power, there were similar promises made by him that he intended to bring ‘true democracy’ to this country. Amongst other things, corrupt politicians were to be disqualified and only persons holding a bachelors degree would be qualified to be elected to the national assembly. To make the process look a sincere effort on his part, he also increased the number of seats for women, amongst others, in a handicapped assembly of a body of people called the parliament, which comprised mostly of his bunch of cronies who had been lured or forced to leave the PML(N), of which they were members previously, to support his rule and befool the masses.

In the background of a war against terror being fought in our backyard which has seen more losses, capture of soldiers of armed forces and retreats than the number of successes combined, General Ashfaq Kayani has stressed for the need to involve the people of tribal areas and Waziristan to win this war. Battle of hearts must be won before the eventual success can be achieved. It is heartening to see the reaffirmation of such beliefs coming from the Chief of Armed Forces, an office which has become an office where coups originate rather than an office of performance of its constitutional obligation of defending the country from aggression.

It was seen how the seeds of accession were sown in East Pakistan during Ayub Khan’s rule who did nothing to remove the apprehensions of that former part of Pakistan when it was largely being felt that Punjab and West Pakistan were the real power centers and the East Pakistan’s jute exports, which provided valuable foreign exports were simply being stashed for the uplift of West Pakistan and Punjab. No effort to break the status quo originated during his rule, which in fact due to lack of popular participation paved the way for further secessionists tendencies and fanned ideologies ascribing to nationalism. It was largely believed that the armed forces, a huge majority of which belongs to Punjab and still does, was only mindful of Punjab’s interests at the cost of East Pakistan and other smaller provinces.

It was hardly surprising then when after the elections held by Yahya Khan, successor to Ayub Khan, there was a deadlock in the negotiations between West Pakistan, represented generally by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman of the eastern wing, who perhaps even if he wanted, could not afford to concede his six points which had earned him popular support during the campaigning towards the elections. Many considered it to be too late a time to rebuild the lost trust during Ayub Khan’s years amongst East Pakistanis. ‘Bangla’ and ‘Bangladesh’ were not words which were coined overnight but had a history of neglect behind them.

Disillusioned by the political advances made by both sides towards dialogue and negotiations, Yahya Khan was only too willing to press the button for a military adventure which many say was doomed to fail in a hostile territory of 9 million people separated by another hostile territory from the other half of Pakistan. The results were devastating and the ones who voted for Pakistan in an unprecedented manner, were the first to depart.

However, learning nothing of such mistakes, under another thriving dictatorship headed by former general Musharraf, the smaller provinces of what remained of Pakistan have increased their hostilities towards the center and seem somewhat disillusioned. It is not surprising then that in tribal areas of the North, which have been neglected by successive regimes and left at the mercy of local tribal leaders who do little to the benefit of their people, are indifferent, if not hostile to the military operation of the armed forces against the ‘Pakistani Taliban’.

Although General Ashfaq Kayani’s statement is a step in the right direction, the process of democracy must be allowed to thrive by the armed forces for a longer period of time. Repetitive interruptions by messiahs like Musharraf must be avoided. It has been seen that in the end such usurpers have themselves turned to politicians, initially discarded as ‘corrupt’ and ‘not competent’, themselves as they are aware that they are incapable to govern over matters which fall beyond their domain as they lack the intellectual and physical capacity to head the armed forces as well as perform civilian tasks at the same time. All justifications used by the military are therefore nothing but an attempt to mask the abrogation of the constitution and the illegality of their coups to gain power.

Musharraf stood down as the head of armed forces only when U.S. told him explicitly that it is necessary to separate the two offices so that U.S. is able to achieve its desired results in the ‘war on terror’ –the success of which is also important to us today now in our northern regions. It was also a difficult time for him in the country in the wake of the lawyers’ movement which ignited a large group of people to resent his unconstitutional rule. The policy of divide and rule and destabilizing civilian regimes must end by the armed forces and intelligence agencies. Having already performed more than 80 foreign visits for the purpose, Musharraf should end his expensive foreign tours where he does little but advocate his own version of ‘democracy’ in a futile effort to explain to the world the ‘special circumstances’ that prevents us from enjoying democracy as understood by the West. A spade after all remains a spade no matter what you call it Mr. Musharraf. How unfortunate it is that one has to go such lengths to provide a cover to one’s own misdeeds as Musharraf would probably reflect in his past time when he is lonely and retired, with those surrounding him presently having abandoned him, just as they have abandoned his predecessors when such usurpers have disappeared from the power scene.

Is the lawyers' movement over?

In an important decision, the Pakistan Bar Council announced on Monday that it would relax the boycott of superior courts of Pakistan. This decision formally endorses the PCO judges and their legitimacy although PBC urged that the struggle against their appointment and restoration of deposed judges would continue.

The strongest exception to this decision by far came from the province of NWFP, where the lawyers have rejected this decision and announced to continue with their boycott. It is pertinent to mention that following the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry last year, NWFP proved itself to be the most vocal supporter of the lawyers' movement that developed over time and six judges including the Chief Justice Tariq Parvez refused to take oath under the newly administered PCO oath subsequent to the November 3 martial law imposed by the then General Musharraf. Following the widespread dissent felt in the province which was also shared by the Rawalpindi chapter of Lahore High Court Bar, the local High Court Bar Association, the decision has created fissures and created ripples in the community, dividing it in the process, which has long considered PBC to reflect their views and always endorsed its decision as to the mode and form of boycott announced by PBC in the past.

The lawyers' movement was a result of the conscious awakening of the lawyers in general and they had selflessly protested a fresh attack on the independence of the judiciary early last year which was considered apparent when former General Musharraf removed a man from his judicial office in a bid to gain some control of judicial institutions of this country, after successfully taming the parliament which was being dubbed as a rubber stamping body with nominal power and control over state affairs. This protest, which was joined by civil rights activists, quickly gained momentum in the middle of last year and soon it was being compared with the likes of the Pakistan movement. Headed by people like Aitzaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmad Kurd, Justice (r) Tariq Mahmood and Muneer Malik, it seemed like it was unstoppable unless it achieved its aims. After the restoration of the Chief Justice, it seemed somewhat that a major objective was achieved but following a 'cooling period' which Musharraf thought would allow the movement to loose its momentum, the lawyers were infuriated once more when the judiciary's composition was changed beyond recognition following the imposition of a martial law on November 3 last year. This resulted in another battle between the lawyers and those seeking to assert the status quo vis a vis the judiciary as it stood following PCO oaths and appointments of such judges to the superior courts of this country.

After a prolonged struggle, finally it seems that the cohesion and unity, which was the most potent weapon in the armory of lawyers has finally been abandoned, at a great cost to the objectives that this movement stood for. The lawyers were observing the boycott of PCO judges with an utmost moral conviction that the judges who had refused to take oath under PCO were still the rightful judges and their adamant refusal to participate in the legal proceedings before the PCO judges was a manifestation of that belief. All of this may change now.

Lawyers, unlike common citizens, are deemed to be the legal intellectuals of the society. Just like it is hard to imagine a legal system without the presence of judges who adjudicate matters ranging from private disputes to constitutional matters, such a system is incomplete without the presence of lawyers who assist the judges in such adjudication and without them the judiciary is nothing but a decapitated plant which does not see the light of the sun during its lifetime. During the times of Cornelius and Kaikus J, the quality of judgments reflected the high level of jurisprudential talent available at the time. However, generally speaking, as opposed to countries like UK, the balance of jurisprudential richness has largely tilted in favour of the legal fraternity in Pakistan. This is all the more so since the legal profession has far more potential for growth, economic success and social standing compared to the bench, whose standard has been declining over the years thanks to political appointments and an absence of a coherent system of judicial training as well as the huge backlog of cases which does not allow a judge to apply his mind for a sufficient period of time to a particular case.

In the background of this scenario, when the lawyers announced their outright rejection of martial law which saw the appointment of PCO judges, on the grounds of being an unconstitutional and an illegal act which threatened to abolish the independence of judiciary and reverse the effect of the reinstatement of the Chief Justice by a Supreme Court which was deemed to be far more impartial and abiding to the principles of judicial independence, their cries generated waves of sympathy amongst the ordinary citizens who were also beneficiaries of a pro active Supreme Court which had removed the obstacles of delay in human rights matters. With the support of the media, lawyers were able to explain the reasons for their protest and explained the importance of the Constitution to a common man. They explained to the public that in effect what they sought to achieve through the boycott was a total rejection of all acts which were designed to curtail judicial independence, which if successful, would erode the sanctity of judicial decisions as well as undermine the collective rights of individuals against the excesses of state authorities. Such was the massive support of the protests against the attempt of the former General Musharraf to tame the judiciary that had the policy of subversion and coercion not been applied by ways of mass arrests of leaders of the lawyers' movement and their activists alike, it was feared that the new status quo might not be sustainable over a period of time.

No doubt due to the nature of their protest of an outright boycott, lawyers and the people in general also suffered severe delay in seeking justice from a crippled judicial system where day to day hearings of cases stood at a minimum. Those who were seeking liberty through the infamous writ of habeas corpus suffered the most along with convicts who were appealing against either their conviction or their sentence or both.

With the passage of time, there must have been some increasing pressure from a segment of lawyers who felt disillusioned by the cause being served by the continued boycott since the restoration of judges was being ruled out by Musharraf and no end was in sight for them. However, a strong majority which had proactively engineered the success of the lawyers' movement and were present in all modes of protests including demonstrations, etc. were still in favour of a continued boycott unless a reinstatement materialized. Although the regime remained ignorant of the demands of such majority, it was still inconceivable that just like the judiciary was replaced by a friendly judiciary, such members of the legal profession could be replaced or an alternate to them could have been established by the regime so as to confer validity to such PCO judges. Unlike the judiciary whose composition was modified in the way that it was, it is inconceivable to replace the legal fraternity altogether and to replace them, save an absolute change in the legal system by way of replacing it by military tribunals, an idea which seems impracticable for the regime or it would have been seriously considered as an option in a country notorious for being the subject of experiments which are previously unheard of.

Such was the absolute resolute, courage and determination of these lawyers, that Dr. Tariq Hasan, a former head of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan during Musharraf's tenure, suggested just a few days ago, the establishment of an alternate judicial system by the lawyers constituting judges who refused to take oath under PCO which he termed as the 'logical conclusion' of the lawyers' movement. Although such a suggestion was perhaps an over extension of the objectives of the lawyers' movement who sought reconciliation and reversal of Musharraf's actions rather than set up a parallel system which would defy the writ of the state-something which would lie outside present constitutional boundaries and parameters, such suggestions were only forthcoming in the wake of the sheer determination shown by the lawyers in a long and self-enduring struggle.

The call for ending the protest by PBC must be viewed in this context. Although PBC has called for the restoration of the judiciary notwithstanding its call to end a boycott, this is a somewhat self-contradictory demand. If one refuses to recognize a person as a judge but goes on to plead in a court of law in the same manner as if one were to appear ordinarily before a judge whom one recognizes as a legitimate judge, the distinction is confusing to say the least. It is pertinent to mention that it was this very reason that the boycott was being observed in the first place and this was how it ought to have been if the lawyers did in fact believe that the PCO judges were not judges at all. Whether the economic harm and danger posed to existing and prospective litigants outweighed the movement that lawyers stood for only time will tell. For now the decision has created a division between the lawyers which has not been witnessed since they started the movement for the restoration of the judiciary and constitutional supremacy in Pakistan early last year. It also allows critics to label the lawyers' movement a failed one and any prospective action in the same manner as observed in the past through a 'protest of boycott' would loose the importance in the light of this dangerous precedent which the lawyers have set for themselves which may be viewed as a surrender. Although questions surround the authority of the PBC to end the boycott, the damage has perhaps already been inflicted.

Perhaps the decision of PBC reaffirms the advice of close aids of Musharraf that sooner or later the protest would be unbearable for the lawyers and the only threat that had ignited a serious threat to Musharraf’s rule would self destroy itself with the passage of time. In the light of the decision of PBC the lawyers may loose a chance to prove what they have always claimed—they stand for principles no matter what the cost. Everything has a cost perhaps after all. Although allegations are in the pipeline over the buying of some cronies in the PBC by the establishment, no evidence is available to support this. If in the future, lawyers at the district and local level all over the country, continue with a boycott in defiance of the decision of PBC, it may become hard to rebut this assumption for members of PBC. It would be a crucial failure on their part to attempt to build a consensus before making such an important decision over a matter which is far greater than perhaps the lawyers would ever get a chance to be a part of and lift themselves in the eyes of the people in the way that they have managed to do so with such great success.

We live in a dark world

The recent shortage of flour and other essential items of everyday use, shortage of electricity and gas- is nothing but a sharp reminder of the ways the present regime headed by former General and Chief of Army Staff, Musharraf has failed. Perhaps if Musharraf, who was unable to restrain himself from committing every constitutional deviation known to a political theorist and adhering to the oath he solemnly pledged to stay away from political life, had provided relief to ordinary man, it would have been a consolation for an otherwise unpopular rule. Instead, in the wake of the present crises and towards the end of his non-stop marathon rule of 8 years which continues to date, we are still faced with shortage of important commodities.

The disruption of everyday life coupled with the loss of property and transport post-Benazir Bhutto assassination is conveniently being cited as an excuse to almost all such woes that ordinary citizens are being forced to deal with. If during peacetime, mass unrest for a few days can cause such crises and famine like situations, one hopes Pakistan is rescued by divine forces if God forbid Pakistan was in a state of war in future. The severe energy crises of the country as well as deficiency of food supplies speaks volumes of the inability of the state to perform the tasks that it is bound to perform as well as narrate the story of the weak position of this country.

Regarding the shortage of electricity, non-feasible and costly power agreements, entered by PPP in the past during its government is time and again cited as the reason for the electricity crises. The question is not whether such agreements with independent power producers the reason for the shortfall or not. It must be rephrased by Musharraf to himself. The question must be what he has done all these years to mitigate the effects of these alleged agreements and as to why he was caught unawares that the country would be in such a dire state and failed to encourage the necessary planning and execution.

It is strange that an act such big as abrogating the constitution becomes ‘unavoidable’ for Musharraf in order to prolong his rule in the guise of ‘necessity’ and ‘counter coup by army’ but no such urgency is deemed to be necessary when possibilities of such crises are overlooked and no end is in sight for the plight of the citizen. Since Musharraf considers himself paramount and takes credit for the so-called high growth rate that Pakistan has managed to achieve over the years in the wake of an unprecedented inflation and growing poverty, all shortcomings and crises must also be accepted by him as personal failures and the precedent of blaming past governments and personalities must be abandoned. As opposed to democratic governments which can face restraints and opposition as to the form or mode of policies for achieving economic development in the presence of a pro active parliament, Musharraf had no such obstacle and had absolute authority starting off as ‘Chief Executive Officer’ who could have engineered any policy towards economic sustainability. Instead, this was not to be so. It is imaginable that had Pakistan remained under democratic rule but for Musharraf’s coup, a meaningful parliament and a representational government would have remained focused on such real issues rather than the previous parliament which remained ineffective as it was full of a whole bunch of pro-Musharraf dummies put together by the ISI and worked as a rubber stamp of Musharraf. All forms of legislation and policy-making was controlled by a single man and the deficiencies of one-man rule are still being felt in the present crises. Although dictatorial rule has brought prosperity in the economic field for some nations but Musharraf’s inability to do so was compounded by the extra role he was expected to play in America’s so called ‘war on terror’ and remained an increasingly subvert ruler who had neither the ability nor the means to govern this country.

As if this was not enough, the recent bomb killings in Lahore are a stark reminder to the insecure environment that we are left to deal with on our own. If an inefficient police force which works under the corrupt thana culture was not enough to make the life and property of ordinary citizens insecure in a lawless state, citizens feel more insecure as bomb blasts become more frequent. The corruption and inefficiency of the police was checked by the judiciary in the past which increasingly took upon itself to fill the vacuum and reprimanded the police force, amongst other emanations of the executive, and the citizens felt relieved. There was a fear of punitive action amongst those who misused their authority for personal gains with little concern for the ordinary whose interests they were bound to protect.

It is a matter of time before critics and historians would judge Musharraf and his continued occupation of his own land as an era of grand aggrandizement by a dictator of his own kin and person. As they say history is the best judge of all. Musharraf still has the chance to go down in history as someone who did something in the end for which he can be commended and wash away some of his sins if not all of them. The starting point would be a free and fair election-something which he has already promised but like all his past promises must not remain a mere promise with no real intention to fulfill it. The best course to execute the plan would be to start off with a neutral caretaker setup and not a bunch of personal followers, as it is presently, who are shamefully aligned to the king’s party- PML(Q). That would pave the way for a truly representational government after the elections which would have the mandate of the people to support it against threats that we face today-be they economic in nature or in the shape of terrorism. To restore the dignity of the state, he must restore the judiciary to the pre-November 3 state. Otherwise, just like they say that man himself chooses his fate as he wants, Musharraf would choose to go down in history as a dictator who chose to hold on the corridors of power rather than bowing away to the will of the people and a democratic system where justice prevails and ultimate sovereignty lies with the people themselves.

Election year

As an appeal to the electorate is made once more in this country’s history, once more the country looks towards the powers that run it to take all necessary steps so that elections are not only held ‘free and fair’ as understood by those who assert it but in effect they are seen to be ‘free and fair’ without any serious reservations from the opposition. Although there are disturbing signs to the contrary, one can only hope that the present regime headed by Musharraf looks at all accusations of manipulations in a serious manner in contrast to the accusations of inadequate security by Benazir Bhutto and the ignorant response of that appeal. In the wake of the recent killing of Benazir Bhutto as well as the country wide agitation which followed, some sentiments against the federal nature of the state were also observed especially by Sindhis who felt betrayed that a beloved father and a daughter, both former prime ministers had lost their lives in Punjab.

The denunciation of such remarks by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, the co-chairman of PPP who would be calling the shots for some time to come was more than welcome. However, one cannot ignore the feeling prevailing in all provinces minus Punjab that they have been subjected to injustice through the unjust enrichment and development of Punjab at their cost and resources. Similarly a feeling exists that leaders from Punjab are given greater importance and have a greater say in the running of the country. The absence of democracy and an independent judiciary in this country has done nothing to help diffuse the situation within the constitutional limits and confines which allows a just system to accommodate all the provinces. At such a time, the need for a free and fair election which paves the way for a body of people who represent all these provinces is desirable to preserve the unitary character of the state.

Apart from this reason alone, one can non-exhaustively cite various arguments in favour of the right of suffrage to be exercised freely and fairly by the people of this country which could possibly culminate in a democratic and a stronger Pakistan. One hopes that Musharraf’s claim that the elections would complete his so called ‘third transition towards democracy’ would be a nail in the coffin for dictatorship and military influence in politics and no such announcements are forthcoming in the future by God-forbid any prospective general who conceives himself as a ‘messiah’ to save the country and destroys all institutions as well as democracy and then tries and recollect the pieces in the way that Musharraf has done.

There are other considerable hurdles in the way not least because the intelligence organization, commonly known as ISI, has an inclination of interfering with the political process and democracy rather than engage in activities which may perhaps reduce terrorism in this country or say perhaps counter its counterpart RAW in the neighboring India to secure the country’s interests and its borders. To the contrary, many suggestions are made time and again that the intelligence may be involved in high profile killings and secretarian disturbances which are designed to secure political objectives which are undesirable and harmful to the democratic culture.

For achieving this purpose, it is at the same time important that representatives of people who have in the past assisted in destabilizing elected governments, refrain from inviting any repetition of horrors of the past by seeking short cuts to power for their personal interest. To achieve the same, through their implied and explicit activities, they have allowed themselves to be manipulated in the process of guiding the system towards authoritarianism and one-man rule. As Benazir Bhutto herself learnt, perhaps at a late stage, that her initial support to Musharraf’s coup of 1999 proved disastrous and a failure as 8 years on, Musharraf is still in charge and is in no hurry to submit to the sovereignty of the parliament. If Nawaz Sharif’s government was allowed to complete its term and the next elections as scheduled were held on time, it was conceivable that her party would have gained a majority in such elections. Instead we saw how in the past, members of her own party as well as PML(N) were either inducted into the PML(Q), which was conceived through ISI or were disillusioned by the support she offered to a military dictator for whom no place is reserved in PPP’s principles.

At a time when all constitutional frameworks have been dismantled by Musharraf who defies all political theorists and proponents of democracy, the political parties must unite to reverse all his actions. It is impossible to dream of a perfect future for the state without recourse and assessment of what damage has already been done. In this way, the assertion of former leader of PPP, the late Benazir Bhutto that an independent judiciary, which safeguards the constitution at all times of peril is possible, by looking towards the future rather than recollecting the past is a flawed one. Hypothetically speaking, if the pre-November 3 judiciary had been present today, it would have taken suo moto notice of her killing and the misreporting by public servants and certainly an inquiry headed by any such member of the pre-November 3 judiciary would have raised no eye brows and may even have allowed us to know who the real culprits and the motivation for her killing was. Instead now we face a situation where Asif Ali Zardari has reposed faith in not a single judge of the post-PCO oath era in a sign of contempt for the impartiality and independence of such judges. Musharraf was forced to invite Scotland Yard as the system of checks and balances and justice is absent after the steps he took in November last year to send all judges of conscience to their homes, while many are still detained there yet still inspire thousands of lawyers and the common man all over the country.

It is now time for representatives of the people to move towards the future. Personal interests must be sacrificed in favour of collective interest. Now that Benazir Bhutto is gone, PPP is poised to gain more political leverage through the wave of sympathy generated all over the country. However it must exercise the trust that many of its followers repose in it to their favour for the benefit of supremacy and rule of law in a democratic state. To achieve the same, nothing can be of greater help than reinstating such judges. Although as late Benazir Bhutto felt that such a move is unlikely, but is not impossible. Sometimes the only hope for the future lies in a quest for the impossible. And to think that this task was unlikely yet not impossible and give up without a try would be a stain on PPP, perhaps brighter than the one sustained by it than the assassination of its beloved leader.