The lessons of March 15

Islaw Khan · #1 Thursday, April 09, 2009

The lessons of March 15
By I.A. Rehman

THE lawyers achieved their objective before the long march participants reached Islamabad or were required to deal with problems of an indefinite sit-in. Ten days after the event, when the euphoria has begun to subside, a somewhat dispassionate examination of the lessons of March 15 should be possible.

There is no doubt the success of the lawyers’ movement has no precedent in Pakistan’s history. Those who have hailed the restoration of the judges sacked by an arrogant ruler as a miracle are not off the mark. There were occasions when the lawyers’ movement seemed to have lost its momentum but all credit to its leaders that they found ways to keep the struggle going and retain the trust of their supporters in civil society, especially the media.

In the end, the lawyers won one of their main arguments and lost another. The government had countered their plea that the judges could be restored through an executive order with the argument that this was impossible without a constitutional amendment. Eventually, the lawyers’ argument prevailed and it was through an executive order that the judges were restored.

However, their argument in favour of keeping the political parties away, at least from the control room, proved to be of no avail. They had to revise their strategy and aggressively court the political parties, to whom they ultimately yielded the command of the Islamabad expedition. The long march was not called off by the bar leaders. This was done by Mr Nawaz Sharif, though in consultation with Mr Aitzaz Ahsan.

Mr Nawaz Sharif was able to claim, and rightly so, the lion’s share of the credit for the success of the long march. He cashed in on all the opportunities that came his way. He correctly read the concerns of Washington and London as well as signs of disunity in the establishment. His sources of information in the administration, federal and provincial both, served him well.

Above all, he made good use of the factors operating in his favour: the police started wilting under modest pressure at Lahore’s High Court–GPO Chowk; for one reason or another, the Punjab administration was unable to call in the Rangers or the army; and the media mobilised the Sharifs’ supporters without any charges. Once he had broken through the barrier outside his residence there was nothing to bar his way. He was as calculating in deciding on a halt as he was while coming out of his house — a race to Islamabad could have caused embarrassment to the mediators.

The events of March 15 underscored the reality that Pakistan has multiple centres of power and the nominal state is not the strongest of them. The writ of this state will run only to the extent it is not hindered by the parallel centres of power. This is the real drag on the government’s autonomy that no politician should lose sight of.

The people were also reminded of the fact that all federating units are not equal. The three less populous provinces cannot by themselves make the centre stronger than Punjab; they will have far greater problems in controlling a hostile Punjab than the latter will have in overcoming their resistance. A mass agitation in Punjab enjoys some advantages over similar formations in the Frontier, Sindh and Balochistan. In fair weather Islamabad will always be vulnerable to a push from Lahore or Peshawar, something Balochistan and Sindh cannot even think of.

Incidentally, it was once again proved that PML-N, the Jamaat-i-Islami and other like-minded factions have much less reason to be afraid of terrorists and suicide bombers than the PPP and ANP — a distinction that could influence the power-brokers’ choices in future.

A couple of incidents of breach of discipline by police officials highlighted the extent of polarisation within the administration, especially in Punjab. The same conclusion was drawn from the extensive transfers of executive and police officers in the province. This reveals a dangerous situation that will have to be addressed on a priority basis. Any call to state employees to defy ‘illegal’ orders can create problems for both parties to the issue, for similar language can be used by an unlawful challenger against a largely sound authority. A glaring example: the Taliban threat to Pakistan.

On the other side, the federal and Punjab governments have themselves to blame for the setbacks suffered by them. Islamabad made a mistake in assuming full responsibility, contrary to the facts, for ruling out Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s return to his post. Instead of raising a chorus about the impossibility of his restoration the government might have taken all parties and the public into confidence and sought a consensus. It could have avoided the impression of reneging on its commitments under the Charter of Democracy and the Bhurban Declaration.

The leadership of the PPP earned negative points on more counts than one. It underestimated the strength of the public sentiment in favour of the lawyers’ movement and overestimated its own capacity to successfully play by the rules of military regimes. As a result of these miscalculations, the PPP ministers and the rank and file came under tremendous strain.

The PPP leadership was also found wanting in showing due respect to and learning from dissent within the party. A mature leadership should have thanked Ms Sherry Rehman and Mr Raza Rabbani for their good turn to the party and their early warning system instead of making them targets of feudal pettiness. And the excuse finally advanced to explain non-restoration of the chief justice was truly worse than the sin, as a Persian saying goes.

The course of events from March 2008 to March 2009 should have chastened the PPP leadership and made it aware of the limits to the politics of bluff and blunder. The imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab was not unavoidable. Article 234 of the constitution gives the centre almost limitless power to find a democratic solution in tune with the spirit of the constitution where it is silent. Much more indefensible was the attempt to install a PPP-led ministry in Punjab. The party will cause itself further grief if it tries to blunder its way through its self-inflicted predicament.

What has civil society learnt from March 15? The lesson that in politics — and the objective before the lawyers’ movement was all along political — argument is effective only when backed by numbers. Besides, a public grievance is rarely solved by interaction between the aggrieved party and the government alone — that is a judicial process as opposed to a political one. In political issues some other stakeholders — the media, the international community, donor agencies, security establishment — also matter. They cannot be taken for granted. If all of these parties are brought on board no civil society effort will fail.

Finally, March 15 again told the people of Pakistan that those who do not learn from history cannot escape its repetition

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pakistan's History From 1947-till present	Sumairs	Pakistan Affairs	13	Sunday, October 27, 2019 02:55 PM
All about U.S.A.	marwatone	History of USA	9	Saturday, June 07, 2008 06:41 AM
Ides of March through the history of Pakistan	marwatone	News & Articles	0	Thursday, March 13, 2008 03:13 AM
indo-pak relations	atifch	Current Affairs	0	Monday, December 11, 2006 09:01 PM