KARACHI, Oct 31: The ongoing controversy between political parties and the military-led regime vis-a-vis the Legal Framework Order is nothing new this country has faced.

What the people are experiencing today is just like the situation at the end of a war, when new ground realities are created and the victor imposes on the vanquished, which then becomes the Magna Carta, until someone challenges it. The person holding the gun then tries to mute the resistance through a stick and carrot policy, and finally get his acts indemnified.

Same is true in countries where breakdown of civil society is caused by Bonapartism and the political leaders are then called upon to provide a safe exit, through a facade of democratic dispensation, also on the terms of the usurper. If the opposition to the usurper is strong, and if he feels unsafe, then he is either removed by force or gives in to public pressure, with grace.

The realities of Pakistan are not different and everyone knew that despite so much of opposition to one man’s rule, political parties, many of whom were the Trojan Horses of the Bonapartists, would give in to pressure tactics, justifying their act in the larger national interest.

The stand taken by the political parties, opposing Gen Pervez Musharraf’s measures to amend the 1973 constitution, is justified and based on the principles of sovereignty of parliament and supremacy of constitution. But everyone knew that in the end, they will indemnify his acts, just like their forerunners.

As none of the parties have secured the two-thirds majority required to bring in constitutional amendments, it seems that the regime would facilitate the PML (Q) to entice minor parties for securing validation of the acts of the military government. It would certainly not lead to stability.

The hue and cry is, therefore, aimed at compelling the General to concede on as many points as possible. The present stance of the major political parties opposing the Legal Framework Order is nothing more than that.

The controversy is mainly on the insertion of article 58 (2) (b) in the constitution, the National Security Council and the indemnity clause, and above all on an individual’s right to rewrite the constitution.

Perhaps it is not the question of totally rejecting the LFO but certain controversial clauses, such as the powers given to the President and the composition and powers of the NSC.

The total rejection of the LFO would mean nullifying the elections. That stage has passed and the political parties missed the opportunity by first clandestinely participating in the local bodies elections and then accepting the electoral laws which were made part of the LFO.

The moderating stance of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal and the declaration by them not to create a deadlock or derail the system is an indication of behind- the-scene give and take, which had also taken place when power was handed over to Mohammed Khan Junejo.

The increase in the number of seats and the age limit for voters, delimitation of constituencies and certain qualifications for being eligible to contest were not a grave concern of the political parties, as now are the discretionary powers of the President and the overlordship of the military through the NSC.

As the military regime is not prepared to accept parliament’s supremacy with regard to the controversial points, perhaps it would be prudent for the political forces which really believe in the supremacy of parliament and sanctity of the constitution to now sit in the opposition and not facilitate in the entrenchment of the President’s blueprint.

Perhaps the overwhelming view of the PPP to sit in the opposition is a prudent decision. While the regime, it seems, would not hesitate to remove the restrictions on floor crossing to achieve its objectives, by sitting in the opposition such political parties would be adding to the moral strength of the people against interventionists. It would strengthen democratic dispensation.

If the regime does withdraw the restriction on floor crossing, it would lose further moral authority, and those who would jump on the band wagon, on the premise of voting according to their conscience, would be seriously betraying the collective will and conscience of their electorate. Once they are elected from a platform, they subordinate their personal conscience to the collective wisdom and will of the people.

Let us wait how far Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain is able to persuade his friend Tariq Aziz, the secretary of the NSC and the principal secretary of the President, to accept the supremacy of parliament and find a mutually acceptable formula, perhaps by declaring the NSC a consultative body under parliament and not above it. Also how much the President is prepared to renounce his discretionary powers vis-a-vis the government and the assembly.

As the situation is, it seems that Pakistan would remain plunged in the vicious cycle for a long time because of questionable involvement of foreign players in our domestic jurisdiction, and the military’s misguided desire to remain clinched to power to preserve its authority and the ever-increasing corporate culture.