Deal against the nation

By Sardar Mumtaz Ali Bhutto
IT IS no surprise that in the current whirlwind of imminent political realignments the usual adventurers have started salivating at the prospect of yet another bite at the cherry, while those who have had an absolute ball at public expense for the last eight years, see an escape from accountability at the polls through an immoral and shady deal.

But it is really depressing that our society as a whole is caught up in the slipstream of the fraud that is being perpetrated against the nation. The Musharraf and Benazir linkup, must raise many serious questions, based on the record of their past practices, and it is up to the sane elements, particularly the media, to honestly analyse what all this means for Pakistan.

Of course, both sides to the deal are at pains to hoodwink the people once again by professing to join hands for the restoration of democracy and the good of the country. No one is fooled as the record of the two on both counts is dismal. Suffice it to point out here that the general came into power by violating the Constitution and destroying the democratic set-up while the so-called daughter of the East does not tolerate democracy even in her own party and ruled the country for five years through henchmen and stooges.

It requires no sharpness of perception to comprehend that the deal makers are motivated only by the desire to stay on in power, even by swallowing what they have spit out, on the one hand and to save billions of ill-begotten wealth and sneak into power by the back door, on the other.

Now that Musharraf is sinking, he is no doubt ready to grasp at any straw, although previously he had no time for Benazir who spared no effort to move in since the day he took over. He often publicly ruled out the possibility of any links with her, spending millions to make her accountable for corruption.

But Benazir is a deal maker by nature. During the Zia days, she made a deal to be shifted from Sukkur jail to Karachi jail and then to her residence. From there, she made a fresh deal with Zia, through the good offices of the late Habibullah Piracha and an American named Peter Galbraith, who was imported from the US for this purpose, to leave the country and remain silent.

On these conditions she was allowed to go. Then again, even though she won the 1988 election, she came into power through a deal brokered by the Americans with the then chief of army staff General Aslam Beg, in which she agreed to continue Zia’s policies and induct his ministers and followers into her government and party.

All this was done even though she publicly held the Americans and the armed forces (whom she later awarded the Tamgha-i-Jamooriat) responsible for toppling her father and murdering him.

In between there was the deal with the MQM to share power in 1988 during which Sindhis were killed to eliminate them from Karachi. Lately, there is her deal with Nawaz Sharif, who is the last of the Zia men and who filed all the corruption cases against her in which she is absconding.

Of course, she has already broken this deal and the Charter of Democracy and the ARD have gone down the drain. It is inevitable here that her conduct must be contrasted with that of her father, in whose name she survives, who rejected all deals and took on and defeated two most powerful military dictators and refused to make a deal with the third, despite the latter’s overtures, even though it cost him his life.

As for deal making for the good of the country, eight years of Musharraf’s rule have turned Pakistan into a deprived and vanquished battlefield in which no one, least of all he himself, is safe, while the five years of Benazir’s governments are remembered only for the dozens of corruption and murder cases against the Zardari couple and their closest confidants. Some of these cases, such as those pertaining to the Surrey palace and money laundering in Switzerland, stand proved.Thus let us take stock of what the nation gets if these two lend each other a shoulder and once again impose themselves on the people: Musharraf continues to fight George Bush’s war against extremism and place the country in increasing jeopardy culminating in rivers of blood. Lawlessness, corruption, unemployment, rising prices and poverty continue to escalate while municipal functions and the basic facilities of education and medical treatment are practically non-existent.

Criminals with mass murder cases against them and notoriously corrupt individuals with convictions and on-going cases fill government offices.

They put on designer suits and tour the world at public expense with absolutely no benefit to the nation. They publish bogus figures of progress which are contradicted by the manifest misery of the people. All elections held during the last eight years have been recklessly rigged, bringing to the assemblies the usual turncoats and time-servers who are nothing but a disgrace and are now looking for new moorings.

All public institutions have drowned in incompetence and corruption, leading to uselessness and collapse. Those absconding from the country to escape accountability for corruption and charges of multiple murder, will return as conquering heroes to recommence their nefarious activities from the point where they were compelled to stop and run.

Each party to the deal is insufferable separately, together they will be a prescription for a bloody revolt by the agonised masses.

Moreover, when the chips are down and the time comes for the leaders to make a stand, this lot will, instead, make a hasty exit on their well-trodden paths to hide in safe havens abroad, which they have built for such eventualities. From there, they will watch and wait like hungry vultures.

The redeeming hope in this scenario is that the deal will not materialise. Even though Benazir is ready to become Shaukat Aziz, the armed forces, which still remain the paramount political force in the country and will continue to play a leading role in any dispensation, will not be happy.

Even though he is sponsoring the formation of a secular front against the MMA, George Bush’s only interest in Pakistan is to have a set-up which effectively implements his edict and it does not matter that this means the wholesale killing of innocent citizens in the country. This is a requirement which no civil leader, no matter how willing, can meet.

While Benazir, in the end, will be more then willing to support a politically dead general in return for escape from the corruption and murder cases against herself and her spouse, the deal really does not give an indication of jelling.

Hence, whether they know it or not, the ball rests in the court of the people. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry made a heroic stand which was bravely supported by the legal profession. But it was the overall backing of the people that brought victory.

The people are masters of their own fate and there is no political force greater than them. They must not allow shady deals between untrustworthy individuals to take the country over the precipice. They must stand up and exercise their right to elect new capable and clean representatives who may go forth and salvage the sinking ship of the state. In this, the role of the media is of fundamental importance and it must play it to the hilt or share responsibility for the sad fate of the nation.

The writer is chairman of the Sindh National Front.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/11/ed.htm

Politics of deals

The path-breaking meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and head of the PPP Benazir Bhutto in Abu Dhabi some weeks ago, if recent statements by both parties are to be taken at face value, may have amounted to not much in terms of achieving a tangible and workable deal. In fact, if the past week or so is anything to go by, all kinds of opposition to the so-called deal seem to have cropped up. The Chaudhrys of Gujrat, obviously among the biggest losers of any alliance between the president and the PPP, seem to have upped their behind-the-scenes opposition. First came the reports, leaked by none other than the PML-Q chief himself, that an emergency was being imposed (something that he then went on to deny, and blame the media for), followed by (seemingly planted) reports that in case the president's re-election bid was struck down the covering candidates could possibly be either the PML-Q chief himself or prime minister Shaukat Aziz.

This was followed by the president's decision to meet members of parliament from various parts of Punjab, reportedly to solicit their support for his re-election. These meetings were boycotted by some MPs, mostly from the southern belt where in the past there has been resentment against the more entrenched leadership of the party. However, since no official reason has been forthcoming and the MPs have not spoken publicly on why they chose not to attend, one can only make surmises but the fact remains that several MPs did not attend these meetings with the president. Historically, the Seraiki-speaking areas have traditionally tilted towards the PPP and there is also a schism within the ruling PML-Q with much of its support coming from central and northern Punjab. Besides, it would be impossible for legislators of the province to now ignore the PML-N factor given that according to a recent survey it came out top in national parties with the highest vote percentage and with the Sharif brothers seriously considering a return to the country.

Added to all this come several public remarks made by Ms Bhutto. Perhaps the criticism that her party would lose the moral high ground -- if not some of its vote-bank -- for allying itself with an unpopular military dictator, what she has been saying of late gives the distinct impression that she is not willing to have a deal with the president that allows him to retain the post of army chief. At the same time, what the president has been saying of late, or is being 'guided' to say by some of his close confidantes, is just the opposite: that there is no need, now or in the foreseeable future, for him to stop being army chief. America's recent admission that it was trying to bring 'moderate forces' closer, a euphemism for a plan that keeps its ally in the war against terror, President Musharraf, in office for another five years, has also not helped either side and will in fact make any deal all the more difficult to defend -- especially when it has to be done before the Pakistani public, for which American endorsement would be tantamount to an immediate disqualifier.

In remarks made to Canadian public television over the weekend, Ms Bhutto said something that seems to turn what the president has repeatedly been saying on its head. She said that the military was the problem and that terrorism and extremism could not be fought effectively as long as federal cabinet -- meaning the government of the day -- felt that the military was needed in a political role to fight it. Of course, Ms Bhutto is correct in her analysis but it belies all this talk of a deal between her and the president. It would be fair to say that both the former prime minister and the general seem to have dug into their positions. Given that the latter is ostensibly in a weak position these days, this doesn't reflect too well on Ms Bhutto's negotiating capabilities. In any case, if the military is a problem then why enter into a deal with it?


http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=69098

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.