A confrontational course
By Javid HusainWednesday, August 22,2007
THE landmark decision of the Supreme Court reinstating the Chief Justice and throwing out the reference against him has left General Musharraf with two options. The honourable thing would be to accept the overwhelming desire of the nation for a genuine democratic order in the country.
This would involve taking steps through a process of national reconciliation for the restoration of the Constitution as it was before the military takeover on October 12, 1999, the return of the armed forces to the barracks, the setting up of an interim government of national unity, and the holding of free and fair elections under a fully-empowered election commission with the participation of all political parties and leaders. This would be followed by the election of the president without uniform from the new assemblies.
If General Musharraf had followed the course of action outlined above, he would have regained the moral authority which he lost in the wake of the ill-advised reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan and its mishandling by the general’s minions. He would have led the country to political stability and calm through the healing touch of national reconciliation and the strengthening of representative institutions, in particular, the parliament. It would also have provided him with an honourable exit from the quagmire in which he is currently bogged down.
Unfortunately, instead of national reconciliation, the general seems to have opted for the path of confrontation. His decision to get himself re-elected from the present assemblies in uniform runs contrary to the spirit and norms of democracy as well as to the people’s sentiments prominently displayed during the agitation in support of the Chief Justice.
This decision also runs the risk of aggravating the existing polarisation in Pakistani politics and may prove to be the harbinger of further turmoil, chaos and instability in the country. It is, therefore, a sure recipe for disaster for the country and for Gen Musharraf’s ignominious exit from power.
Gen Musharraf is in the habit of claiming that national interest demands his re-election as president in uniform. By what logic he has reached this conclusion is not clear to anybody except perhaps his close confidantes whose vested interests are tied with his continuation in power.
Perhaps, like many others before him, he considers himself indispensable to the stability and survival of the country. The country existed before he came on the national scene and will survive long after he is gone. In any case, the nation can do without the political instability, lawlessness, denial of justice and deprivation that his eight-year rule has brought about.
But, more importantly, no single individual, howsoever powerful he may be, has the authority to define and interpret single-handedly the national interest of the country. National interest can be defined and refined only through a process of consultation among the various institutions of the state under the guidance of a government representing the will of the people.
The way Gen Musharraf rides roughshod over the various institutions of state (his failed attempt to subdue the judiciary being the latest example) has made a mockery of the process of consultation. But above all, the general does not represent anybody except himself, a coterie of generals and the unprincipled politicians around him.
His government, therefore, lacks the political legitimacy and the moral authority to define the national interest. His constant references to national interest in support of his rule are nothing more than a clever way to disguise his insatiable desire to continue to wield power unchecked by laws and rules.
One also finds quite amusing the daily declarations by Musharraf and his supporters that the general would get himself re-elected in uniform from the present assemblies since this is the requirement of the Constitution.
Since when has the general become so fond of the Constitution? Was it after the overthrow of a democratically-elected and constitutionally-established government on October 12, 1999? Was it after he engineered the ouster of a Chief Justice and a few other judges of the Supreme Court to get his coup validated? Or was it after he pushed the Seventeenth Amendment down the throat of an unwilling nation with the connivance of some self-serving politicians with the objective of assuming unlimited powers?
Whatever the truth, it is obvious to national and international observers that democracy and a president in uniform cannot go together. In a genuine democracy, the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, prevails.
A chief of army staff occupying simultaneously the office of the president and thereby controlling the various institutions of state including the parliament is the very anti-thesis of democracy. The election of a serving COAS to the office of the president, therefore, cannot be justified in a democracy, politically or morally.
Gen Musharraf’s intention to seek re-election to the office of the president from the existing assemblies whose own term is expiring is politically unacceptable and morally reprehensible. If he needs the mandate for another term, he must seek it afresh from the people of Pakistan. That can happen only if he seeks re-election from the new assemblies rather than the outgoing ones whose own mandate is coming to an end.
As for the constitutional provisions about which Gen Musharraf seems so concerned now, his legal wizards can point out ways to get them suitably amended to allow the election of the president from the new assemblies.
The movement launched by the lawyers against a blatant attempt by a military government to subdue the judiciary was not only for the restoration of the independence of the judiciary but also for a genuine democracy in the country and for putting an end to the involvement of the armed forces in politics.
The restoration of the Chief Justice was only the first step in the struggle for the realisation of these laudable objectives. One is encouraged by the statements coming from the leadership of the legal community indicating that they are aware of the battles that lie ahead.
It would, however, be unfair and unrealistic to place the whole burden for the restoration of a genuine democracy in the country on the shoulders of the legal community. The political parties have their own important role to play in this regard. These parties and their leaders, whether in the country or abroad, should come up to expectations in this national struggle to get rid of military rule and establish a democratic system of governance in the country.
They must understand that the time for “deals” and palace intrigues which weaken this struggle is past. The people of Pakistan have awakened and those parties and leaders who try to give a new lease of life to the present military-dominated government will pay a heavy political price during the next elections. In fact, it is clear that the process of taking such parties and leaders to task has already begun.
There is also another category of self-serving politicians, mostly belonging to the ruling party, who are trying to scare the people that if they persist in their demands for a genuine democracy and a president without uniform, it would result in the imposition of martial law.
However, these tactics are unlikely to work. The people are fully aware of the colossal damage that martial laws and the military regimes, including the present one, have inflicted upon the state and its institutions in the past resulting in stunted political evolution, endemic political instability and elitism that together have led to the denial of justice, lawlessness and deprivation and great income inequality.
Under these circumstances, contrary to the past, the people are not likely to take lying down any declaration of martial law. There are also signs that many political parties and leaders, except those enjoying the patronage of the present military government, have learnt from their past mistakes and will no longer play into the hands of the military establishment. Further, a martial law would amount to acceptance of a political defeat by Musharraf and might sound the death knell for his rule.
Finally, Musharraf and his minions frequently justify the present quasi-military rule on the basis of the serious external challenges faced by Pakistan at the regional and international levels. The argument couldn’t be more fallacious. In times like these, the country needs a government which enjoys the full support and mandate of the people won through fair and free elections.
A military dictatorship, lacking the mandate of the people, is a fragile structure which, as our own history shows, can crumble easily in the face of external pressures.
Ideally, General Musharraf should have shown statesmanship and chosen the path of national reconciliation for the restoration of genuine democracy in the country. Instead, it appears from his latest statements that he has embarked upon the path of confrontation. The course of action adopted by him can only lead to political turmoil and instability in the country. Since a government lacking political support is ill-placed to face external challenges, it may even lead the nation to a foreign policy disaster.
Despite the internal and external dangers looming ahead, it would be unrealistic to expect General Musharraf to change course. It appears from his past conduct, especially from the recent judicial crisis, that more than principles and scruples, the general understands the language of power.Civil society in Pakistan, therefore, must play its own role in blocking the efforts of the military establishment led by General Musharraf to prolong its rule in the country. As they say, eternal vigilance is the essential requirement of freedom and democracy.
The writer is a former ambassador.
E-mail:
javid_husain@yahoo.com
http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/22/op.htm