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.

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.