The politics of deal-making

By Imtiaz Alam
Preparations are underway for a crucial transition to a more democratic-looking regime as the Musharraf administration comes under greater internal and external pressures and braces to meet extended challenges to its survival. Against this backdrop former prime minister Benazir Bhutto captures the headlines while setting her terms for a well-managed transition to civilian rule. And with these developments the whole political scene is changed forcing various political actors to reposition themselves in a complex and treacherous power game. The issue of making a deal, as if a sinful act, has become the focal point of debate, regardless of its content. The real issue is what kind of a transition and what kind of a settlement, if not a 'deal' is necessary for a country that is at the crossroads of militant-driven destabilization and a transition to greater participatory democracy and effective rule of law.

Only those who are subjectively carried by their adventurous or romantic baggage, or those who are left out of historical opportunities, would take a rejectionist position. Therefore, accusing Ms Bhutto of betraying the cause of democracy by entering into a dialogue with the Musharraf government is not justified. The parliamentary parties are in contact with the treasury benches on a daily basis without which no parliament can function. Despite daily fights and public debates, both the government and the opposition have a modus operandi, which remains under stress at times and at ease most of the time in normal democracies.

Making of various deals among the political interlocutors has been a long tradition and no political element worth the name has ever been above it, except those who are locked into their self-created rigidities. Only infantile adventurists have been averse to compromises, regardless of figuring out their loss and benefit. There are of course good deals and bad deals; good compromises and bad compromises. And history is rampant with such compromises that benefited one party or the other or both sides. A few examples from recent history are worth mentioning: when Filed Martial Ayub Khan convened a round table conference, most parties participated and succeeded in getting almost all their demands accepted by the dictator. That was a good deal which was subverted by Z A Bhutto who wanted to embarrass his political opponents and take a political mileage out of the popular wave that had overtaken the whole country. But rejection by Bhutto of the deal reached between the opposition and Ayub Khan paved the way for General Yahya Khan's martial law. The constitutional accord that Z A Bhutto reached with the National Awami Party (NAP) and Jamiat Ulemai Islam (JUI) was a good compromise that allowed the passage of an agreed constitution in 1973. Those who subverted this accord or torpedoed the PNA-Bhutto agreement became instrumental in paving the way for another martial law in 1977, and perhaps both sides were responsible.

In the present times, we know three deals that had far reaching impact on our polity. First to enter into a deal was the deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif who sought asylum instead of fighting back the coup makers. It was a bad deal motivated by personal interests. The second deal was struck between the Mullahs of high clergy and the Musharraf regime that allowed the chief of Army Staff to become president in exchange for greater share for the MMA vide the most despicable 17th Amendment. The third deal was entered into between the army and the local militants in North Waziristan that did not go well with the war against terrorism and served the purpose of the extremists. Therefore the real issue is not of a deal or compromise. It is of what suits whom and whether it is in public interest or against it. However, the issue of timing and the way it is undertaken is also important.

The All Parties Conference in London could deliver only a much repeated resolution with two yet-to-take-place public meetings in the strongholds of JUI, which is still willing to cut a separate deal with the military establishment to revive an erstwhile mullah-military alliance. Despite a vast agreement on the issues of free elections, an interim neutral government, an independent election commission, unacceptability of a president in uniform and his re-election by the current assemblies, the opposition got divided. The differences over the tactical matter of resignations from the assemblies and their timing could be left for further deliberation when the occasion would have so demanded. But our too intelligent mullahs were keen at dividing the two mainstream leaders to pursue their own agenda and use the PML-N to confront international consensus on restraining Pakistan from falling into the ditch of extremism, isolation, anarchy and self-destruction.

Exploiting the difficulties the Musharraf regime is facing in terms of not doing enough on the terrorist front and well aware of the dangerous consequences of destabilization that will suit the extremists, Ms Bhutto has taken the course of diplomacy and dialogue. She understands better than any other politician the present imperatives of international consensus regarding the present and future of Pakistan. Maintaining her liberal and secular credentials, she has refused to join hands with the mullahs and did not even hesitate to make a common cause with the regime on the issues of women and minorities' rights. Without jeopardizing the war against terrorism and compromising on democratic principles, she accused the Musharraf regime of adopting a strategy that helped extremism grow. However, she did not attack the regime for whatever efforts it made to curb terrorism as most parties in the newly formed All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) do religiously.

Ms Benazir has upheld the demands for free and fair elections, separation of the offices of COAS and president, rejection of the army's role in politics, independence of the judiciary and supremacy of parliament. As the US pressure on the Musharraf regime increases with the linkage of aid to the fulfilment of conditions regarding war against terrorism, revival of democracy and nuclear proliferation, her position is hardening in the negotiations. But what she should not forget is that the Musharraf regime is at its lowest ebb and it is increasingly becoming unpopular. A deal should not go against democratic principles and should be transparent. The best course to actualize it is through the vehicle of a round table conference so that no one remains excluded. Meanwhile, Shehbaz Sharif must rest assured that both Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif can together dispense with the authoritarian parts of the 17th Amendment in the next freely elected parliament. Let first thing come first, i.e. free and fair elections.



The writer is editor current affairs,

The News, and editor South Asian Journal. Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=66402

We the People…

That's life

By Ayesha Tammy Haq
Speculation is rife and the rumour mill is working overtime with talk of an accommodation between President General Pervez Musharraf and Motharma Benazir Bhutto. The 'Deal' as everyone calls it is viewed with suspicion, so much so that the word 'deal' is now a four-letter word. But as a friend of mine said, while it is a four letter word that conjures up negative sentiment, it is a word that describes the spirit, or at least the political climate, of our times. So much emphasis on a word, or is it what lies behind the word. Does compromise sound better? A compromise between various competing factions that is arrived at after a series of negotiation, involving certain accommodations and concluded after much discussion. This is no new fangled innovative notion, important issues have been settled this way for centuries and history is replete with instances where parties, individuals, corporations, governments have sat at negotiating tables and worked out agreements between themselves with a view to breaking deadlocks and moving on.

As a lawyer one is constantly engaged in negotiations to resolve disputes. The resolution is invariably some kind of compromise where opposing parties start at separate ends of the table and meet as close to the centre as possible. A compromise or deal, as we like to call it in Pakistan, is only effective if it reflects the agreement of all the parties. In disputes involving individuals and even corporations this is not difficult, the parties to the dispute are before you and they agree to and sign off on and implement the agreement reached. Individuals work it out amongst themselves; with corporations may be a little more complicated as they need take it to the board and the shareholders for approval. When it comes to the governance of a country the issue becomes a little more complicated. The stakeholders are many, expectation could be high and as a result there is a lot more at stake. Any deal, compromise, treaty, armistice made must be put into a political framework if it is to work. This means taking it back to the people, taking them in to confidence, making them a part of the decision making process and carrying them along with you.

Things have changed in Pakistan today; the lawyers' movement to restore the Chief Justice of Pakistan has woken up the nation and recharged it politically. Expectation is now very high and people want to see real change. That includes change not only in the business of governance but how it is conducted and by whom. Spurred on by their historic victory the lawyers stood before Pakistan and the world and said that the restoration of the Chief Justice was only the first of many battles. And that in the battles to be fought in days to come, which include the building and nurturing of strong institutions, return to a truly democratic and representative form of government and ensuring the rule of law, they look to civil society and the political parties for their continued support. A huge responsibility has been placed on their shoulders and they appear to be happy to carry it, not as a burden but an obligation that has emerged out of the contract that has been made between them and the citizens of Pakistan. This contract emerged out of the four and a half month struggle for the independence of the judiciary and upholding the rule of law. The contract, written on the streets, in the court, on television, in every domain, was sealed with the blood of many, those bludgeoned by the police in Lahore, those gunned down in Karachi and those targeted by a bomb in Islamabad. A heavy price to pay, but Pakistani's have paid it and are now not willing to see it all fall apart and amount to nothing. They have reengaged in the political process and will not see their sacrifice amount to nothing.

This brings us back to the current negotiations and the meeting between President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in Abu Dhabi. Media advisors of both parties have denied a meeting but senior government ministers and officials have confirmed it. Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed said on television that talks had been going on for two years and that this was logically the summit meeting to wrap it up. But what are the contours of this understanding? No one it appears knows. There are lots of questions and no answers. This is not taking the nation into confidence, this in fact creates a backlash of public opinion and gives rise to speculation, imputes motive and questions bona fides of both President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto.

President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto are not telling, and no one seems to be in the loop, so speculation is becoming fact in people's minds. This lack of information results in anger, distrust and a sense of betrayal. I have been accused of being starry-eyed when I recounted my trip to Abbottabad with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and his lawyers. It appears that it's not just me, the nation is starry-eyed. It has a dream that it believes can be realised. And to realise that dream it has pinned its hopes on the lawyers.

So here's an account of another trip. Much shorter than the marathon drive to Abbottabad but the driver was the same and the sentiment stronger. I went to Burban for lunch with Aitzaz Ahsan on Sunday. The old Pajero has been retired and a new car notwithstanding, he was easily recognised all along the way, it was a case of 'Honk If You Love Aitzaz'. People waving, cheering, yelling out congratulatory greetings, headlights flashed, victory signs were made, this was a nation still celebrating a nation recognising the significance of the historic decision of the Supreme Court on July 20 and the man who was greatly responsible for it. If the car stopped in traffic he was surrounded by well-wishers. No one walked past, man, woman or child. People wanted to kiss his hand or at the very least shake it. We arrived at Burban for lunch and it was a re-run of those bar association meetings but with a difference. Everyone congratulated him on his historical victory and in the same breath said for the sake of this country and all of us, tell us that there is no deal.

Just before embarking on the drive to Burban, Aitzaz had been telling us about the case and how a huge weight had been lifted off his shoulders. Surrounded by admirers in Burban you could see the shoulders struggling under the weight of a new responsibility. I heard a young boy on the table next to us tell his younger siblings that this is the man who saved the chief justice. Perhaps too young to understand the importance of the statement they looked at Aitzaz Ahsan in awe -- they understood the word saved. And now we look at him and Munir Malik and Ali Ahmed Kurd and Hamid Khan and Justice Tariq Mahmood and all the lawyers to save us again.

This is a responsibility they undertook when they vowed to ensure the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. They had delivered once and as far as the country is concerned they will deliver again. A heavy cross to bear but I saw the shoulders take the weight again. There is an idealism now that must not be dashed by expediency. The nation is not just grateful for what the lawyers have done in leading this struggle, public sentiment indicates that they are relying on them to continue this fight and not rest until we have this country back on the rails.

The wheel of fortune's sphere is a marvellous thing: What next proud head to the lowly dust will it bring? Tumult and bloody battle rage in the plain: Bring blood-red wine and fill the goblet again! -- Hafez



The writer is a corporate lawyer, host of a weekly talk show on satellite television and a freelance columnist. Email: ayeshatammy@gmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=66399

__________________
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.

What's your point of view?

Spotlight USA

By Anjum Niaz
The writer is a freelance journalist with over twenty years of experience in national and international reporting.

Musharraf meets Benazir. They do a deal. What is it? We'll soon know. What do people want? That's what matters most. After a journey of 60 garbled years, Pakistanis appear taking control of their destiny. Everybody has an opinion, including myself. No longer, I think, will people allow a dictator to declare himself their president; no longer, I hope, will they let a prime minister rip them off as has happened not twice but four times in the recent past. They respect the army, I'm certain, but want it back in its barracks. They respect, I'm sure, the judiciary but seek the lordships to do justice not play politics. They wish, I'm positive, suo motto notices against the flagrant violation of their human and constitutional rights.

Let's celebrate then. Shall we dance? Not so fast! We are free at last; we have the right to make choices and decide our future but freedom doesn't mean stuffing laddoos in each other's mouths or dancing the bhangra or taking out processions. Freedom means strategising the future. Coldly and calculatedly. The lawyers have lit the lamp and now passed the flame to the media, especially the television that has given us a shot in the arm. A booster dose, if you please, for people to huddle nationwide and decide who is the best person to entrust their future to. If we don't seize the moment, then we deserve the dunces we have had so far. Who does one want -- is it General Pervez Musharraf? Is it Ms Benazir Bhutto? Is it Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain? Is it Mian Nawaz Sharif? Is it Maulana Fazlur Rehman? Or is the choice that difficult to make?

Worry not. Stand all these worthies in a straight row for two hours and grill them to the point that beads of sweat adorn their brows. Yes, two solid hours tough. Resting their arms on lecterns with their laptops (if laptops appear alien to any, it's an outright disqualification). We need leaders and not empty vessels or windbags. We want literate and computer savvy rulers who don't depend on their factotums at ministry of information for factoids. We want them to answer our questions on where they intend to take the country. They should be able to surf the net themselves and scan the newspapers. Remember, it's the 21st century! I know Benazir Bhutto's back has gone by sitting at her computer table from morning till evening, but I can't imagine the other hopefuls going gung ho over their computers, if they own one.

America, the land where laptops were born; where democracy is over 200 years old; where its citizens have unlimited freedoms and a Congress that is not a rubber stamp nor is judiciary impotent. Still a man like Bush sneaks in and takes his country to war against Iraq losing hundreds of lives and billions of dollars daily. How did that happen? Well, the presidential debates showed Bush as the best option and the pollsters predicted George W succeeding Bill Clinton. Debates really don't mean a thing. It's the same bunkum every four years. Oxymorons like gay marriage, bad healthcare, joblessness growth, poor rich gap get beaten to death by the presidential candidates on television. In the end the American people elect a dullard like George W Bush as their president, not once but twice!

This time America is determined not to get fooled.

The 2008 elections have kicked off by eight Democrats debating each other as to who should be the best candidate to face his Republican opponent 15 months down the road (yes, Americans think ahead unlike Pakistanis). With the help of a new type of technology, the 'G-8' gathering of presidential aspirants was a revolutionary way to filter out dummies like the present White House incumbent, making sure people never repeat the mistake again. Becoming the president of America is not the same as becoming the president of Pakistan. President Musharraf merrily announces one fine day that he has decided to stay put for another five years (God forbid) because he thinks he's good for Pakistan and the citizens be damned.

Sponsored by CNN and YouTube, a new type of questioning involved people participation. It worked to expose the candidates and their agendas. A questioner asked: if someone really wants a change, are you the guy to give it to them? What have you done? Show me. Demonstrate to me the ability to get these things done that you've championed in the past. Asked another: how would America be better off with you as president? Hillary Clinton was asked pointedly: Mrs Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?" Then someone bracketed Senators Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton saying: Whenever I read an editorial about one of you, the author never fails to mention the issue of race or gender, respectively. Either one is not authentically black enough, or the other is not satisfactorily feminine. How will you address these critics and their charges if one or both of you should end up on the Democratic ticket in '08? The last question was critical since America can be both racist and sexist!

Answered the only black presidential candidate Obama: "I do believe in the core decency of the American people, and I think they want to get beyond some of our racial divisions. As president of the United States, my commitment on issues like education, health care is to close the disparities and the gaps, because that's what's really going to solve the race problem in this country. Answered the only woman candidate for president: "I may be able, finally, to break that hardest of all glass ceilings. But, obviously, I'm not running because I'm a woman. I'm running because I think I'm the most qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running in January 2009."

Tough question were asked by two women wanting to legalise their union by marriage: We're from Brooklyn, New York. If you were elected president of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other? Other questions included: Will you send your kids to public school or private school? As president, what will you do to ensure that my son will live a full and happy life? What would you as president do to make low-cost or free preventive medicine available for everybody in this country? What's the connection between global warring and global warming -- when we talk about wars for oil, we're essentially keeping the same approach to energy?

The elites in America may control the economy, still no matter who you are, whether you're a ditch-digger, a teacher, a CEO, a waiter, a maid, every American gets the right to decide. The television channels in Pakistan can empower every stratum of society to get involved in the election process. Get General Musharraf, Shujaat Hussain, Benazir Bhutto, Altaf Hussain, Nawaz Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and whoever else wanting to rule Pakistan under one roof and floor them with questions from just about anybody wanting to quiz them. Until the last day of canvassing, these candidates must be answerable to hundreds of questioners spread over weeks and months. Grill them hard. Notice lately the level of interest and political maturity of the callers heard on various TV networks daily.

Pakistanis are ready and willing to be engaged with politicians. This will be the first step towards introducing genuine democracy in the country and not a sham, as has been the case in the past where the agencies and not the people have had a hand in deciding who shall rule. Forbid the agencies and permit the people to pick up the ruler. Perhaps Pakistan is not ready for change.



Email: aniaz@fas.harvard.edu

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=66403

__________________
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.

Hovering uncertainties

Was it a direct or an indirect contact is besides the point, although not even a half-wit and the most gullible would believe that Benazir Bhutto would have rushed all the way from London to Abu Dhabi just to talk with Pervez Musharraf through the intermediaries. What really matters is what was cooked up between the two, and that makes one's hair stand on end for what that forbiddingly portends for the nation's future. Whatever the constructs the two or their hangers-on put on their parleys, the stark fact stands that these had nothing to do with some sublime principles but had everything to do with their personal political ambitions. It was all about the spoils of powers. He wants another go at the presidency, and that too possibly with the uniform on. She wants another stint in the prime ministerial office, and that too with the slew of corruption cases off her back. But if both are desperate for power, both are also in a dire predicament. He has fallen from the people's good graces; she stands long discredited in the popular eye. It is, thus, sheer opportunism and expediency that has brought them together to help each other out in their power ambitions. They may have struck a mutually-acceptable deal or may be nearing it. But both must understand that their expediency may not work, given the prevalent conditions and no lesser for the fact that neither has the popular support to back up their any deal over the sharing of the power pie. He must realise that Pakistan is not even what it was after March 9. She, too, must understand that it is a much changed land from what it was when she fled overseas to evade the long arm of the law, what to talk of 1986 when she marked a tumultuous return home from exile. Today, Pakistan is a land sizzling with irreconcilable political antipathies, unbridgeable elitist confrontations and widening societal polarisations. In the given conditions, their expedient foray is sure to be affronted at every front, particularly when in the popular perception they have launched on to it at the prodding of the Americans. And since the country is presently being swept all over with a strident anti-American sentiment, this very public perception spells doom for their self-serving enterprise with horrendous consequences for the nation. For one, leave aside the storm of opportunistic breaking and remaking of the political parties this deal is bound to trigger to eventually make for all sorts of unwanted uncertainties and turbulences, even her erstwhile allies of her days of wilderness are sure to team up with General Musharraf's opponents to confront the two on the street. Since neither has the people power on their backs, not unimaginably they may have to press into service the sleights of invisible hands to fructify their power-sharing deal. And that is just asking for a turmoil of uncontrollable proportions. Even if, a big if indeed in the given circumstances, the election is all fair, their opponents will cry foul and the people will leap up to their clamour and accept their charges as true. Had their parleys been open, if not all inclusive which arguably these should actually have been, and on issues transcending their personal power objectives, perhaps such an imminent eventuality could have been forestalled. After all, even in entrenched democracies, political compromises and accommodations are not unknown. These do happen, and not just before or after the polls but at times even during the polls. But it is the political parties that make such adjustments and for the parties, not for the individuals as evidently is the case with the parleys between these two. Since their secret parleys have bred all sorts of doubts and suspicions in the people's minds, their opponents will have an open session to agitate the street, which probably they may succeed in. Even if they do not, there is every potent possibility that burning political issues, arising out of this deal or pertaining to it or even unrelated, will be brought up to the courts for adjudication. Already, a religious politico has moved the Supreme Court to rule on the continuation of the president in the post of the army chief despite the termination of his superannuation age. You do not know what else will soon be landing in the honourable superior courts for verdict. It is surely now an open field. And what critical crises and dreadful uncertainties these court challenges will plunge the nation in cannot even be imagined. It is going to be total turmoil, more horrifically at this critical juncture when what the nation wanted imperatively was complete peace, tranquility and solidarity to cope up with the menacing internal and external threats. If, God forbid, some harm comes to the country, the posterity will never forgive these two power-hungry for sacrificing the national interests at the chopping block of their overvaulting personal ambitions.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ed&nid=63

__________________
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.

Finally they met

EDITORIAL (July 30 2007): Despite firm denials by both presidential aides and Benazir Bhutto's spokespersons, it is believed to be true that President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto met secretly at a royal palace in Abu Dhabi on Friday afternoon.

As to whether their meeting remained inconclusive with regard to cutting a deal, there are different reports, some insisting it ended in a deadlock and others saying its success is being kept undisclosed to sustain Benazir Bhutto's credibility as an independent actor not beholden to a military dictator. Both had wanted to meet each other, for their own but different reasons: while President Musharraf desires to get reelected by the sitting assemblies, Benazir Bhutto is after a record third term as prime minister.

Given the fact that politics sometimes produces strange bedfellows, chances of the wishes of both being fulfilled are fairly bright. Only the naïve would dub the President's eagerness to cut a deal with Benazir Bhutto - earlier the subject of his intense ridicule and charges of corruption - as a dramatic climb-down, for in politics priorities change with changing circumstances.

Pervez Musharraf, who now appears to have driven himself into a corner as much for his own doings as for the unforeseen international developments, has rightly concluded that if he has to choose a new partner for the rest of his political journey nothing fits into that definition as perfectly as the Benazir Bhutto-headed PPP.

President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto are already late in meeting together. Time is no more on their side. He has only six to 10 weeks to get him reelected from the incumbent parliament and assemblies. And, for Benazir Bhutto's comeback the constitutional timeframe is even more constricted; she would be eligible for premiership for the third time only after the bar on her is lifted through a constitutional amendment and cases against her are withdrawn. Of course, with the PPP supporting the government in the parliament, effecting constitutional changes should be no problem.

But in between lie vast swathes of uncertainty stemming from potential intervention by the Supreme Court interpreting relevant constitutional provisions differently from what the government has in mind. President Musharraf's unannounced departure for Abu Dhabi and Benazir Bhutto's from London from amidst an important party conclave is indicative of the urgency dictated by their mutual concerns and their abiding political interests.

One issue that reportedly still stands unresolved is the timing of his doffing the uniform. And, that is an important issue because the one uncompromising demand incessantly made by Benazir Bhutto has been that she would never deal with a Musharraf in uniform. Will he doff his "second skin" before election? remains a question. So far, there is no indication whatsoever that he would concede her demand. But a way out of this riddle could be the guarantee by a third party, possibly by an Arab royalty or the Americans, that once re-elected as the President he would oblige the PPP leader.

As the general election nears the pieces of our political jigsaw puzzle have started falling into their places. A grand opposition is already on the scene, thanks to the Nawaz Sharif-hosted multi-party conference, in the form of All-Parties Democratic Movement. In the run-up to the general elections, it is expected to retain its unity although that's not its raison d'etre, as it is basically focused at stopping President Musharraf from getting reelected.

With a few insignificant changes, including some desertions, the ruling coalition is also likely to retain its composition. While PPP would, hopefully, turn out to be greatly instrumental in helping the President retain his office, its role in the post-general election would be determined by the size of its victory. Chaudhry Shujaat has not ruled out sharing power with PPP, appreciating Benazir Bhutto's contribution to "national interest" by supporting President Musharraf.

However, the PML (Q) leader has not promised Benazir Bhutto prime ministership. In fact, her so-called negotiations with the President are mainly centred on prodding President Musharraf into easing the transition to a democratic political order in Pakistan. She rightly believes that this can come about only by making him part of the process.

The crises that Pakistan is presently facing will brook no luxury of destabilising rallies and street marches; instability already is too pandemic. Let political leadership across the board rise above personal considerations and meet in a kind of APC with military leadership willing, to surrender to the will of the nation reflected through free and fair general elections. To this there is just no alternative.

http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?i...term=&supDate=

__________________
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.

Politics of ‘deal-making’

By Kaiser Bengali

THE reported Benazir Bhutto-Pervez Musharraf meeting in Abu Dhabi has proved to be a bombshell and unleashed a storm of feverish comments and speculations. The most common opinion among the opposition and sections of civil society is that the PPP chairperson has made a deal with a military dictator; the deal being defined – explicitly by many – as compromising principles and interests of the people and the country for the sake of personal political gains and power.

The PML-N is calling it a betrayal of the Charter of Democracy, signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in May this year. The relevant clause in the Charter states: “We shall not join a military regime or any military sponsored government. No party shall solicit the support of [the] military to come into power or to dislodge a democratic government.” Their reference is apparently to the part that states that no party shall solicit the support of the military to come into power. The MMA too is attempting to use the opportunity to transfer the mantle of being the military’s B-team onto the PPP.

The import of the reported Abu Dhabi meeting requires that the still unfolding events be analysed somewhat dispassionately. Reports regarding negotiations have been confirmed by Benazir Bhutto herself. That part is, thus, no longer in dispute. What remains contentious, however, is whether negotiations should have been held at all. However, the charges against the PPP go further. There is the not-so-implicit inference that a deal has been struck and, more so, that the deal amounts to the PPP forming a government under General Musharraf.

To be fair to the PPP, however, there is no evidence that Benazir Bhutto is soliciting the support of the military to come into power. There are three stages to a successful deal – negotiations, agreement, power sharing – and there is no evidence beyond stage one. Rather, Benazir Bhutto has been consistent in her demand that General Musharraf will have to shed his uniform before being considered for reelection to the presidency. The charges of a betrayal of the Charter of Democracy, thus, do not hold. The charge of acquiring the B-team mantle is nonsensical.

In any case, MMA’s record of insidious collaboration with the military and military intelligence agencies, from the erstwhile East Pakistan days in 1971 to Afghanistan in the 1980s, is too blood-soaked to enable it to ever shed its notoriety as the military’s B-team.

However, assuming that a deal for power-sharing is under negotiation, General Musharraf is as much an accomplice as Benazir Bhutto; – unless it is assumed that the general remains all-powerful and the PPP has been weakened to a point where Benazir Bhutto is willing to accept a share in power under the tutelage of a military dictator. That is not the case; rather it is the other way round. General Musharraf is fatally wounded – politically – and is frantically trying to reach out to those who can salvage him.

In fact, if reports are correct, it is General Musharraf who – after continually heaping scorn on Benazir Bhutto for eight years – has had to eat his humble pie and call upon her at her home-in-exile in the UAE.

Two questions arise. The first question is: if General Musharraf is weak, why is he negotiating with Benazir Bhutto? After all, the military and its supporting ashraafia consider the PPP to be an internal enemy to their hegemonistic status within the country, as much as they consider India to be an external enemy in terms of the regional power equation. The answer perhaps lies in comparative political standing. PML-N does have a national stature; but, after the mass defections to PML-Q, it is now left with only a rump. Of course, General Musharraf’s exit can see most of the Q-Leaguers flocking back to their parent party.

However, the party will then be seen as a continuation of the king’s party and fail to command the kind of legitimacy that is now sorely needed. The MMA also has a national presence, but its retrogressive ideology is now passé. Other parties have a regional presence, while yet others can fit into a bus. The PPP is the largest political party with roots in all the provinces. It is the only party that commands the moral and political stature to salvage the country from the sorry state it has been reduced to. History is repeating itself.

The second question is: if the PPP is in a relatively strong position, then why has Benazir Bhutto chosen to dialogue with the wounded dictator? The answer, perhaps, lies in realpolitik and in the fact that she and her party colleagues have learnt some valuable lessons from history. All political and civil society segments are now agreed on the imperative of clipping the military’s political wings and sending it back to the barracks. The question is: how is this to be done? Given that the military carries weapons, one way is to launch an armed struggle.

This is an option that neither Benazir Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif would opt for. Primarily, they do not command the capacity for armed action. More pertinently, however, they and their parties do not possess the proclivity for violence. Thus, if the violence option is excluded and if peaceful transfer of power remains the only possibility, there will be a need to talk. The military cannot and will not make a unilateral decision to surrender power to the political parties and walk away. The transfer will have to be negotiated. That is what Benazir Bhutto is doing.

If Benazir Bhutto were to accept becoming prime minister, or even agree to nominate someone for the position, a la Mohammed Khan Junejo, Zafarrullah Jamali or Shaukat Aziz, answerable to a military-president rather than to Parliament, it would certainly be tantamount to a ‘deal’. It would also be deplorable and amount to erasing the gains from decades of struggle for political rights by the people of the country and by the members and supporters of her own party. It would also entrench the military in the corridors of power for perhaps another quarter of a century.

Fortunately, that is not likely to happen. Benazir Bhutto does not need to scrape power crumbs from the hands of a military dictator. She has endured the heavy personal costs of political struggle for too long. She is heading the largest political party in the country that has sustained the continuous onslaught of the establishment for about three decades. She commands the confidence that her party can ascend to power on the strength of a mandate from the people.

Benazir Bhutto and her associates also appear to have learnt lessons from history. The uncompromising struggle against Ayub Khan in 1968 and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 failed to bring about a democratic change of government. Ayub Khan was followed by General Yahya Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto by General Ziaul Haq. Both the military regimes caused enormous damage to the country and to the lives of the people. General Yahya Khan dismembered the country and General Ziaul Haq fragmented the political fabric of society.

General Musharraf has created civil war-like conditions, with insurgencies in Balochistan and FATA, attempts to enforce – by violence – Taliban-style religious norms and suicide bombings in the heart of the federal capital. The seriousness of the internal crisis facing the country demands a consensual approach among the major parties at least. Clearly, this is not the case, with the PPP and other opposition parties adopting diametrically opposite strategies.

The All Pakistan Democratic Movement (APDM) appears to be a reincarnation of the PNA of 1977. There were hard-line elements within the PNA who were opposed to any negotiated settlement with the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and forced an uncompromising stand. The result was a coup. A similar uncompromising struggle, being advocated by the constituent parties of the Nawaz Sharif-Qazi Husain Ahmed-led APDM, carries the danger of yet another military takeover and postponement of a democratic transition for, perhaps, another decade.

Benazir Bhutto appears to have taken cognizance of the fact that pushing General Musharraf to the wall is likely to provoke a coup and she is, apparently, trying to avert such an eventuality. She has assessed that General Musharraf is weak, has realised that repeating the failed tactics of 1968 and 1977 would be immature and irresponsible, and has decided to negotiate in order to ‘persuade’ the general to engage in an orderly transition.

MMA’s shrill outbursts against any possible entente between General Musharraf and the PPP can be understandable. The political space that they currently occupy is on account of the vacuum created by the forced absence of the PPP and PML-N. Their return to the political arena threatens to send the MMA back to the political periphery. Nawaz Sharif’s opposition is less understandable. After all, any concession that Benazir Bhutto can extract from General Musharraf – return to Pakistan, withdrawal of cases, withdrawal of the two-term limitation, etc. – will also benefit Nawaz Sharif.

On a more substantive note, the PML-N’s absolute refusal to talk to General Musharraf or his emissaries or to accommodate anyone from the PML-Q on account of their association with the military regime demonstrates their commitment to pristine principles and is admirable as such. However, there appears to be a contradiction in the sense that the PML-N has shown no compunction about forging an alliance with the MMA, which provided General Musharraf the constitutional crutches to continue in power – in uniform – and which continues to be a coalition partner with the general’s PML-Q in the provincial government in Balochistan.

The PPP’s insistence that the MMA has to first end its partnership with the PML-Q and quit the Balochistan government in order to be accepted as an opposition party appears to be more logical.

Pakistan has come across many crossroads in its history. It is across a crucial one now. The country will go through an orderly transition or jerk back to another period of military misrule. It is a choice between democratic resurgence and authoritarian decay. The major parties carry a heavy responsibility. The role that the smaller parties play in shaping the context of the transition will also be of crucial importance. Will the political leadership measure up?

http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/03/op.htm

__________________
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.

Tainted entry

Dissenting note

By Dr Masooda Bano
The meeting between General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in Dubai had little surprises. While both sides give different accounts of the actual discussion, at least one thing is clear: the PPP is ready to make a deal to get into power. This hardly paints a rosy picture of PPP as a principled party but then few expect the PPP to be a dynamic party under Benazir Bhutto's leadership. The main issue is therefore not that why is Benazir Bhutto choosing the path it is but whether coming elections would be free or would they be manipulated to make the party win given that the whole idea of a deal is based on promises of certain ends irrespective of what the public wants.

Clearly, any political leader genuinely confident of his grass roots support won't choose to enter such deals with Musharraf as Benazir Bhutto is choosing to do. If she actually ends up supporting a uniformed Musharraf's re-election by the current assembly, an issue on which she has issued contradictory statements in recent weeks, then it would confirm that she actually feels quite weak as a political leader. Otherwise, given the anti-military atmosphere in the country right now where the military has been targeted both by the secular and religious forces, it was an ideal time to seek the military's exit by mobilising the masses on political party platforms.

What is quite clear is that the PPP has lost its ability to mobilise the public barring exceptions like Larkana. She might present herself to be a saviour of Pakistan in the western media (something that she actually does), where she is willing to risk her life to save Pakistan's slide into militancy, the reality of her ambitions is hardly that noble. Against the rising resistance to Musharraf-US 'war on terror' policies in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto has worked on the policy makers in Washington to convince them that her party with its secular credentials is needed back in power to curb 'militancy' within Pakistan. To convince US of her credentials, she has been painting the religious parties and madressahs as the dens of terror.

Many of her recent interviews in the western media quote her blaming the madressahs for breeding militancy and stocking arms and then carrying on to claim that she is best qualified to deal with the madressahs and check militancy within them. On what grounds does she claim this ability to reform madressahs is difficult to understand. Madressahs, especially those for females, have steadily grown in number from the eighties onwards including Benazir Bhutto's tenures. But, more than that the problem is that she is choosing the same route to power as Musharraf chose. Since September 11, he has exaggerated the fundamentalist tendencies within Pakistan because it has suited him to gain western backing. Now Benazir Bhutto is doing the same, she is playing up the militant image of madressahs and Pakistan to argue that she is needed to curtail it.

The reality is just the reverse. Any political party that takes an extreme view on madressahs and supports use of force to curb militancy (like the PPP has done in the case of Lal Masjid) is going to lead to continued violence that we are currently seeing under General Musharraf's rule. The solution to the current militancy rests not in taking extreme secular positions but in actually following the middle path. The militancy that we are currently seeing is actually a reaction not just of the US 'war on terror' policies but also against the forced modernisation that was encouraged by the current government through promoting very liberal lifestyles on the electronic media and events like mixed marathons, which generated much controversies. The female students and Umme Hasan of Jamia Hafza were very clear that they have become reactionaries not because they wanted to impose their version of Islam on everyone, but because things have reached such extremes under the current government that they wanted to make a point that 'do not ridicule us if we are choosing to cover up'. The idea is not to say whether they were right or wrong in their actions but to highlight that if militancy is to be curbed within the country, we have to understand why people are becoming reactionary in the first place.

What is important to realise is that the Pakistani public or its madressahs are not militant. They are ordinary people who are trying to make strategic decisions on everyday basis to best improve their living conditions. What is pushing the country into militancy is the 'war on terror' and the forced push towards secularisation, which then leads to a reaction rather than an acceptance of liberal values. We have seen the extreme liberalism of the Shah of Iran followed by a completely theocratic state. Let's not push the secularisation agenda to such extremes in Pakistan that we end up going to similar extremes.

Given that Benazir Bhutto is trying to work her way into power through making bold promises of secularisation of Pakistan to Washington, she could actually end up forming a very unstable government. By building an alliance with Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto is also reflecting her alliance with the US and this alliance is very dangerous for any political party in Pakistan under the current setting. If Benazir Bhutto is viewed to have come to power through deals with the US and the military rather than a genuine public vote then there is going to be continued political instability. Any party, which can truly curtail militancy in Pakistan right now, is one, which has the courage to tell US that it is actually the US policies that have to change if militancy is to come down in Pakistan.



The writer is undertaking post-doctoral research at Oxford University. Email: mb294@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=66793

__________________
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.

This deal will not deliver


Reality check

By Shafqat Mahmood
The writer is a former member of parliament and a freelance columnist based in Lahore

The first reaction to a deal between Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf is a mixture of disbelief and outrage and it cuts across various fault lines. There are those who hate Musharraf and cannot believe that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's daughter would throw a lifeline to a sinking military dictator. She is supposed to represents pro democracy/anti military forces, they say plaintively. Why is she sabotaging all those people who struggled valiantly since March for judicial independence, democracy and the rule of law?

Then, there is the other side: people who hate politicians and believe that Musharraf is the best thing that happened to this country. Not only do they eulogise his eight years in office, they believe that he is the only person who has the potential to take this nation forward and introduce something they grandly describe as haqooq ul ibad. For them too this is a betrayal. How could Musharraf agree to share power with people who are known looters and plunderers they ask?

Sitting astride these opinions are people who have no great love for either Benazir Bhutto or Musharraf. For them there is only one serious contradiction in this country and that is between 'liberal' ideals and extremism. I have put liberal in inverted commas because there is no consensus on what liberalism stands for. For many it is nothing more than a culture of modernity akin to western social and cultural practices. Seen in this context it becomes a lifestyle issue and the extremists are perceived as enemies because they threaten it.

It is interesting that for this liberal faction other liberal ideals of due process and rule of law take a back seat when it comes to fighting extremism. They covertly and in some cases some openly advocate tough military measures to suppress it even if it involves widespread killing. Their worldview seems closer to George Bush and Dick Cheney than John Stuart Mill but what of it. This is liberalism of the twenty-first century.

This category of liberals also believes that military strength married with popular support is the only mix that can rid this country of extremism. Thus, Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf getting together is a good thing for them. They are not particularly concerned that this could mean a set back for democracy or that in this partnership the military will always have an upper hand. They only want the PPP to provide a broader fig leaf to cover dictatorship's naked power as it is directed against extremists.

The two protagonists actually cutting the deal couldn't care less for any of these opinions. Musharraf has only one interest. He wants a smooth and as far as possible a credible transition to another five years in power. Once this end is achieved, he will be ready to tackle whatever troubles this cohabitation brings. The name of the game for him is not a stable future arrangement although it would be desirable if it comes about on his terms. What he really wants is to get through the election hurdle and have some legitimacy while doing it. This he hopes the PPP will provide.

For Benazir Bhutto, this deal is not just a lessening of pressure as far as cases are concerned or a re-entry into the corridors of power although both issues are important. She genuinely believes that if the party is dealt out of the power game for another five years, it will disintegrate. The example of her party men ditching her after 2002 elections is sobering reminder to her of how cruel the game of politics can be.

She also believes that coming into power is always through an arrangement and not through popular will. She forced herself into power in 1988 but only after the Americans helped and she agreed to General Beg's terms. She was kept out in 1990 even though her voting percentage was more or less the same. She came into power in 1993 only after army acquiesced to it and was forced out in 1996 when the army refused to support her. She therefore thinks that only an arrangement or a deal will get her back into power.

An important part of this equation is the attitude of the Americans. They have no great respect for Benazir Bhutto as is evidenced by the fact that in the last eleven years, since she was ousted from power, hardly any American official of consequence met her. But, now they are willing to give her another chance because they have a great steak in the future of General Musharraf.

The Americans believe that despite all his troubles Musharraf is still their best bet in Pakistan. The difference in their thinking compared to the past is that they now believe he needs to be strengthened by adding a doze of popular support to his dictatorship. It is in this context that Benazir Bhutto and the PPP have again become relevant. I wouldn't be surprised if Benazir gets a better reception in Washington this time than she has had in the recent past.

While all these deals and arrangements are being worked out what of the people? Do they matter at all? The situation on the ground is that Musharraf is an intensely hated figure. The extremists are of course his deadly enemies but his troubles do not end there. The entire liberal intelligentsia including lawyers, professionals, civil society activists, and the media only have a negative opinion of him. So do religiously inclined people of all persuasion. He is in the unique position where neither the left nor the right, neither the conservatives nor the liberals, except a miniscule faction, are standing with him.

Among the political forces he now has the overt support of the MQM and elements in the PML-Q. I say elements because most of the others would ditch him the moment he weakens. He also has the covert support of Benazir Bhutto and perhaps Maulana Fazalur Rehman but not of their party's rank and file. The PPP is going through a severe crisis with a majority of its second and third line leaders and workers deeply unhappy with what their leader is up to. The same can be said of the JUI-F. Fazalur Rehman may covertly support Musharraf but does his party?

Meanwhile those opposed to Musharraf are finding a resonance among the people. Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif, Imran Khan, and even Qazi Hussain Ahmed are rising in stature because they refuse to accept Musharraf's dictatorial rule. The office bearers of the bar associations are also making headlines with their anti Musharraf stand. So, does a deal between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf brokered by the Americans and supported by a small faction of liberal intelligentsia mean anything to the people?

The only positive that I see in this deal is that Musharraf may be beguiled into allowing a free and fair election. If this happens, I am convinced that he and his supporters in the Q league and if the PPP joins them, will get an electoral thrashing they will remember for a long time.



Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=66794

__________________
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.

Time to start afresh

By Farahnaz Ispahani
As Pakistan moves towards the last four months of what might become an election year, it is natural for political noise to reach higher decibels. Political players are aligning themselves as if for a final battle, at least for the immediate future. General Musharraf has voiced the belief that the next Pakistani elections will be a contest between forces of moderation (i.e. liberal and progressive Pakistanis) and the forces of extremism (i.e. religious militants and obscurantists). Several politicians and media commentators, however, have projected a different polarity, that between pro-establishment and anti-establishment forces. These simplified divisions of the Pakistani nation ignore the multiplicity of factors that could influence the fate of the country.

The unconfirmed meeting between General Musharraf and PPP Chairperson Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto is currently the hottest topic of discussion in the media and in political circles. Had Pakistan remained consistently on the democratic path, meetings between the country's head of state and opposition leaders would have been a routine matter. However, in the unique circumstances that the country finds itself in these days, the purported meeting is unusual.

The president draws his power from his military uniform, not from the vote of the people, and the country's democratic political parties continue to question the very legitimacy of military rule. A meeting between the head of the largest political party of the country and the military chief is significant precisely because of the history of conflict between Pakistan's political forces and the military.

Dialogue between the army, which has attempted to control Pakistan's destiny and direction for most of its existence, and political forces that seek to represent the voice of the people, could be the basis of a new order. For example, General Musharraf and Ms Bhutto could be negotiating an arrangement that results in the military's withdrawal from politics and the return of normal democratic politics.

Instead, everyone seems to be concerned about the likelihood of a sell-out by either Ms Bhutto, on the issue of democracy, or by General Musharraf, on the matter of corruption allegations used by the military in the past to carve out a role for itself in politics. There have been so many sell-outs in Pakistan's short history that the fear of another one simply cannot be brushed aside.

Immediately after the news broke that General Musharraf and Ms Bhutto were meeting in Abu Dhabi, the media strained its resources to eke out more from a single piece of information. The strategy of the government and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) to maintain ambiguity about the purported meeting was unhelpful and, as a result, the media relied on comments by people who were neither close to the alleged "deal makers" nor had information that would help analysis.

Once the spectre of a surreptitious deal had been raised, PML-N, Imran Khan and the MMA piled on Benazir Bhutto to carve out a greater share of the anti-Musharraf constituency. An argument has been built by MMA and PML-N that suggests that the mere fact of negotiating with the Musharraf regime is somehow tantamount to condemning Pakistan to perennial military rule. Given the flow of media commentary, which is strongly against any deal, few commentators have paused to ask whether there has ever been a transition from military to civilian rule anywhere in the world without at least some negotiation between civilian and military leaders.

It is ironic that at different times both the PML-N and the MMA have negotiated with the military regime albeit with limited agendas. Nawaz Sharif proceeded abroad in 2002, and received a full pardon from General Musharraf, after a deal brokered by the Saudi Royal family. The MMA helped Musharraf make the Legal Framework Order (LFO) part of the constitution, primarily because it wanted its own share in government after the 2002 elections. It continues to be a coalition partner of the ruling party--PML-Q--in Balochistan with a heavy share of provincial cabinet slots.

It should be borne in mind that Ms Bhutto is being hauled over the coals for an alleged arrangement that would result in free and fair elections, removal of Musharraf's uniform, restoration of the constitution and the formation of a civilian government led by a popularly elected prime minister. In return, all she may be conceding is Musharraf's diminished role as president to provide an exit strategy, and that too only if he manages to secure election from the presidential electoral college. The MMA's deal with Musharraf, on the other hand, was not about restoration of democracy.

For sixty years, Pakistan has suffered as a result of the military top brass assuming that it alone knows what is best for the country. The political class has contested that claim and, in the process, has been subjected to constant repression or efforts to discredit it. Now, with phenomena like the Lal Masjid blowing up in their faces, Pakistan's generals appear ready to rethink their previous "We know best" approach. If that is the case, rapprochement between the generals and the politicians would inevitably help address Pakistan's big picture problems. Discussion about any purported deal should focus on whether it will move us towards a democratic Pakistan or away from that ideal. It should not be a rehashing of our prejudices and old grievances against one or another national figure. Perhaps it is time to start afresh.



The writer is a Pakistani journalist currently based in the United States. Email: fispahani@gmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=67234

__________________
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.

A deal amid much turmoil

Plain words

By M B Naqvi
Indications are that a deal has been struck between President Pervez Musharraf and Ms Benazir Bhutto, life chairperson of the PPP. Musharraf refuses to confirm there is a deal; he only acknowledges contacts with Benazir. Benazir has denied that there is a done deal; she has pointed to three matters that can derail a possible agreement between them: one, there is the uniform; exactly when Musharraf will doff it is uncertain; she wants to be sure. Two, what kind of elections there will be is also the question. So what do the disagreements boil down to? All she says is that she wants to ensure that the polls will be free and fair. Three, another, perhaps unsettled, matter is the nature of power-sharing between the president and the prime minister (and the cabinet).

The background suggests that Mr Musharraf is being prodded, in fact driven, by the US and Britain to do a deal with Benazir. A face-to-face meeting has taken place. That suggests a basic agreement; otherwise they would not have committed themselves so publicly by meeting. It may, however, be true that there may still be a few loose ends to tie up. Along the way, it is known that Benazir wants America to be a guarantor of such an agreement.

The national situation is worrisome: Islamic militants in FATA, NWFP and even Punjab are challenging the writ of the government and can certainly be seen as trying to set up their own small states where their writ will be run. The Taliban and other Islamic extremists are well-ensconced in Balochistan. They would do as their counterparts are doing in NWFP and FATA before long. Balochistan is also the scene of a regular guerilla war going on between the Balochistan Liberation Army and the Pakistan Army. It is of low intensity but steady. Most areas are seething with discontent, particularly Sindh.

The national situation includes what the lawyers' movement has achieved. They have restored not merely the chief justice to his office but have transformed the Supreme Court into an effective pillar of the state that cannot be taken for granted. The climate of opinion in the country has changed. Popular acceptance ratings of President Musharraf have plummeted. Moreover, the lawyers are likely to start another countrywide agitation, this time against the regime of General Musharraf: he is not to be accepted either as uniformed president or as a civilian unless he has satisfied all the conditions laid down in the constitution. Given the popularity of the lawyers and the CJP, the new lawyers' movement has a good chance of success.

A question now arises: how will Musharraf -- conceptually supported by the PPP, the PML-Q (or its residue), the MQM and Maulana Fazlur Rehman (given his broad hint) -- get himself elected by the current assemblies? Won't some people go to the Supreme Court asking for a prohibitory order to the chief election commissioner for not accepting the election papers of a uniformed president; the SC can order the suspension of proceeding by the EC until the Supreme Court finally decides on the issue of the uniform and other disputed matters. Many can file writs in the SC now to good effect, if law and constitution support them.

Objections to the president not fulfilling the conditions laid down by the original constitution is a weighty matter; others can question the later amendments to the constitution that they are against its 'basic scheme and spirit.' Some people may want the Zafar Ali Shah case reviewed.

It is hard to see how Musharraf can sail through the current assemblies without the SC putting its foot down with its freshly-gained moral authority. The Supreme Court can virtually kill any of the schemes of the president that collides with the constitution as it originally was by adjudicating on the vires of the amendments.

That lawyers are flexing their muscles and might achieve some success cannot be ignored. None can say with certainty when they will achieve their aim completely, but given the current climate of opinion one puts one's money on their success. Don't forget the battering that the Musharraf regime has received from abroad as well as from within the country; its image is one of indecisiveness and floundering. It is at its weakest today.

True, the commando president has so far stuck to getting himself elected in uniform from the soon-to-expire assemblies and ruling to go on till 2012. (What he may have conceded to Benazir is a different matter). What will he do if the SC, or the people, make it impossible for him to achieve his goal? What can his American friends do in the face of the Supreme Court and the people of Pakistan?

Hints of an emergency or even martial law have been dropped and the elections can be postponed. These things are easier said than done. The person who imposes such measures has to have the image of unassailable power. Musharraf no longer has that. Martial law is simultaneously a most likely and least likely thing to happen. This time round the country is not going to accept it; it is likely to be resisted.

The army cannot countenance confronting the people in the streets. Emergency is even less likely to succeed. Who will listen to the orders of Musharraf regime which is being disobeyed right, left and centre? Thanks to his character traits, the president remains overconfident and ready to face all odds. But some odds ought not to be faced.

Arbitrary moves can only worsen the situation. For months the FATA areas are a war zone. Imposing martial law or emergency is unrealistic on two main counts: the new popular mood and expectations have transformed the usually placid political landscape of the country, especially that of Punjab. Secondly, American preferences have to be factored in. True, for the US what matters in or about Pakistan is its army. So long as it remains a supreme factor in Pakistan, civilian politicians can safely be sacrificed. But even they are not blind: they can see how Musharraf's leadership is being drained of its effectiveness and is now a liability even for the Pakistan Army. Some furious thinking is therefore needed.

There is now urgent need for some political education of the senior ranks of the army's officer corps. A knee-jerk reaction of imposing martial law with a new face is no longer practicable. They had better remember the old adage: a gentleman knows when to count his chips and go home. It may be time to do what has been unthinkable so far, i.e. sharing power with genuinely elected civilian politicians irrespective of their political stripes.

The first thing to do is to ensure that the MI, ISI and the IB and today's ruling rabble do not doctor or distort the election. Secondly they have genuinely to return to barracks if they want Pakistan to have a future. Third, Islamist extremism is certainly a perplexing problem. But the army's use without a workable political component has only exacerbated the problem. The problem must be left to elected politicians.



The writer is a veteran journalist and freelance columnist. Email: mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=67436

__________________
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.