Dawn, June 14th, 2014

Anti-democracy move



DEMOCRACY is in trouble again, or so it seems. At least if the words and illogic of the anti-democrats, even certain ‘liberals’, are to be believed. Somehow, a year after one of the country’s most open and competitive elections, an event that heralded a first-ever transition from one democratically elected government to the next, democracy is the problem again. Why? To hear the anti-democrats and supporters of would-be saviours tell it, the PML-N, Nawaz Sharif in particular, have failed the nation. Unless they are removed — and, according to sections of the media, this much-needed ouster would even be welcome if undertaken unconstitutionally — Pakistan will collapse. This is nonsense. Pakistan is in no danger of collapsing — and certainly in no danger of collapsing because of democracy. Quite the opposite: an unconstitutional move to oust the government at this stage of the transition to democracy would almost certainly herald a return to security policies that could seriously threaten the integrity of Pakistan.

Cut through the obfuscation and lies being peddled at the moment against democracy and the so-called sins of the Sharif-led government are threefold. One, Mr Sharif had the temerity to believe a former dictator should be put on trial for his crimes against the Constitution. While it would have been far more preferable had Pervez Musharraf been proceeded against for the coup of 1999 rather than the emergency of 2007, the simple reality is that much of the pushback against Mr Sharif began with his attempt to apply the law and the Constitution to the military. Second, Mr Sharif has resisted a partial military operation in North Waziristan against anti-state militants preferring instead to focus on talks with the outlawed TTP. While criticism can be and has been heaped on Mr Sharif’s approach to tamping down the militancy threat, it is also true that he did not conceive of the idea of talks — the military did. Even now, the security establishment has peace deals in place with militant groups that can and have attacked Pakistan. Third, Mr Sharif has since taking office consistently talked of better relations with India. But who, other than that security establishment with its dated views and self-serving hostility, can really argue that an improvement of ties with India is not in Pakistan’s best interests?

The problem then is not that democracy has once again endangered Pakistan but that the democrats are seeking to make different choices to the anti-democrats — and the old order is unable to digest that reality. In such an environment, the advice of veteran politician Mahmood Khan Achakzai ought to be listened to very closely. Speaking in the National Assembly on Thursday, Mr Achakzai called for the democratic forces to unite against the anti-democrats’ machinations. Will the PML-N stop needlessly isolating itself even from well-meaning potential allies?



Post-attack mudslinging

IN the aftermath of the Karachi airport assault, instead of looking inwards and trying to identify the loopholes that made the debacle possible, the federal and Sindh governments are indulging in mudslinging. This, unfortunately, is in line with officialdom’s conventional response after every disaster: rather than bravely accept blame and promise to learn from their mistakes, our politicians try their best to shift blame elsewhere and refuse to learn. Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan has blamed the Sindh government for failing “to put in place appropriate measures to avert the attack”, after Islamabad had issued several warnings in this regard. As reported in this paper, the interior minister had apparently written to the Sindh government in March warning it about security loopholes at the old airport, yet the Sindh authorities “paid no heed” to the warning signs. In reaction, the Sindh information minister defended his administration’s record, saying only Sindh was confronting the Taliban.

Before this war of words further obfuscates matters, let us clarify a few things. Firstly, the responsibility of securing airports is the job of the Airport Security Force, a federal body coming under the aviation division. Before the interior minister lashes out at the Sindh administration, he and his colleagues in the federal government must first ascertain whether the ASF personnel had the training and equipment to thwart an assault of such devastating proportions. Consider, for example, the claim that security personnel at Karachi airport were using ‘fake’ bomb detectors. Training and equipping the ASF is the federal government’s responsibility, no matter what excuses are made. Regarding the claim that the Sindh government did nothing to plug the holes around the airport’s periphery, again, this is the prime responsibility of the ASF and the Civil Aviation Administration, also a federal body, which is explicitly tasked with airport management and upkeep of infrastructure. Coming to the Sindh government’s role, the provincial authorities were indeed lax in their ability to keep track of militant activities in Karachi. Counterterrorism is a complex undertaking, requiring harmony amongst the military and civilian intelligence agencies and the police in order to deliver. Was this seamless convergence in place between the Sindh police, home department and intelligence agencies? It is these tricky questions the federal and Sindh governments need to address rather than criticising each other. Instead of politicking, maturity is required from all stakeholders to jointly tackle the monster of militancy.



Off the ECL

A COURT order has been handed down, but the speculation continues unabated. On Thursday, the Sindh High Court finally adjudicated on retired Gen Pervez Musharraf’s petition against the placing of his name on the Exit Control List — he is on bail facing charges of high treason — and struck down the federal government’s order in this regard. Nevertheless, the former military dictator will now have to wait for two weeks to find out whether he can actually travel abroad, since the court suspended the operation of its judgement for this length of time. This allows the federation to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. As a result, the ‘will he, won’t he flee abroad never to return?’ question that has exercised the minds of many since the charges against Mr Musharraf were framed continues to be asked.

As the court observed, though, courts and countries are not entirely helpless if someone facing criminal or civil charges has to be compelled to return to answer for his actions. The suspicion that Mr Musharraf will try and evade the charges against him has been around since he was granted bail. However, so far, matters have played out otherwise. But more than that, the government itself has set the grounds for the applicability of whatever decision the courts saw fit to hand down in the matter. Back in April, when Mr Musharraf approached the federal government about the issue of his name being on the ECL, the Ministry of Interior informed him that it was “unable to accede to his requests” given the “record pronouncements of the superior courts on the cited subject....” In other words, the hot potato was passed on to the courts. Now that the Sindh High Court has reached a decision, there is little point in dragging the matter on further. However, should Mr Musharraf decide to go abroad to see his ailing mother, guarantees should be required that he will return to face the charges for which he has been indicted.