RULE of law is the sine qua non of good governance. This truth is not easily understood by military rulers who usurp power in violation of the Constitution and their oaths which mandate upholding the Constitution and refraining from involvement in political activities.

A military government, which comes into power in violation of the Constitution and whose functioning is guided by the whims and interests of a few individuals at the helm of affairs, is the very antithesis of the rule of law.

It is unrealistic to expect from a military government to show respect for law. As the famous Persian saying goes, “When the architect lays the foundation stone in a crooked manner, the wall will remain crooked till the heights of heavens”.

President Musharraf’s decision to send a reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan to the Supreme Judicial Council, the notification to declare him `non-functional’ and the ham-handed manner in which the whole issue was handled beginning from March 9 when General Musharraf in army uniform had a meeting with the Chief Justice in his camp office, have plunged the country into a serious constitutional crisis.

One can only lower one’s head in shame at the pictures carried by the print and electronic media of the excesses against the person of the Chief Justice who, as the head of the third pillar of the state, should have been treated with the utmost respect even if a reference against him had been sent to the Supreme Judicial Council. The same can be said about the stories that the Chief Justice, even after his return to his official residence from the president’s camp office was kept incommunicado.

These were not “tactical” mistakes as the president has tried to explain to the nation. These were serious issues of a strategic nature as they delivered a serious blow to the independence of the judiciary as enshrined in the Constitution and its capacity to deliver justice. The president and the prime minister must accept responsibility for these serious lapses: the former because with the unity of command, goes the concept of the unity of responsibility, and the latter in his capacity as the chief executive.

Both of them, therefore, must apologise publicly to the Chief Justice and to the nation. After all, if the president can apologise to a private TV channel for the violation of its office by the police, why can’t he do the same for the excesses committed against the Chief Justice which perhaps have more serious constitutional and legal implications?

While it would be inadvisable to comment on the substance of the reference which is under the consideration of the Supreme Judicial Council, it is pertinent to mention that questions have been raised about the real motives behind this move. Some commentators have linked the dispatch of the reference to the government’s alleged unhappiness because of the judicial activism shown by the “non-functional” Chief Justice, the Supreme Court decision against the privatisation of the Pakistan Steel Mills, the action taken by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to provide relief to the victims of involuntary disappearances and the likelihood of constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court later this year on the president’s intention to get re-elected from the existing Assemblies.

The matter is of the utmost importance to the nation because it is germane to the concept of the independence of the judiciary, its ability to interpret the Constitution and the law objectively without fear or favour, and its capacity to act as a check against the excesses of the executive in the exercise of its authority. The reference by the president thus has raised important constitutional questions the answers to which will determine the manner in which the judiciary will function and this country will be governed in future. It is, therefore, understandable that the overwhelming majority of the legal fraternity is up in arms on this issue.

After all, if the Chief Justice of Pakistan can be made non-functional, or sent on forced leave as the government now claims, on the basis of mere allegations made by the government, which are yet to be investigated and proven, and can be subjected to humiliating treatment, the fate of other judges can be well imagined. In such a situation, when the fear of references would be hanging like the sword of Damocles, it would be unrealistic to expect the judges of the superior judiciary to act independently in the dispensation of justice.

Thus, if the constitutional issues, which have been raised by the reference against the Chief Justice and the manner in which it has been handled by the government, are not resolved properly, we may have to say good-bye to the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan which is an indispensable condition for establishing the supremacy of the law in the country.The distinguishing feature of a civilised society is the rule of law. The absence of the rule of law means the absence of civilisation and a return to dark ages in which might rather than right prevail. Where laws end, tyranny begins. Justice is inconceivable in a society where laws are openly flouted by the powerful irrespective of whether their power flows from personal possessions as in feudalism or from the misuse of coercive institutions of the state like army or police.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s history is replete with examples of the violation of the law of the land by unscrupulous individuals at the helm of affairs through the misuse of powerful state institutions. The worst examples of the trampling over of the law of the land, of course, are military usurpers in violation of the constitution and establishing one-man rule.

The arbitrariness of one-man rule, besides destroying the foundation of law, also weakens the state institutions be they the legislature, judiciary or various departments of the Executive which can gain strength only through respect for laws and rules. The compulsion of a military ruler to appoint the heads of various institutions of state on the basis of loyalty because of constant concern about his own legitimacy rather than merit accelerates the process of their atrophy and destruction.

Finally, corruption thrives in a climate of lawlessness and cronyism especially when the process of accountability becomes irrelevant or an instrument of political victimisation. In such a situation, one cannot even think of good governance.

In Pakistan, the deteriorating condition of state institutions is well-known. PIA, of course, leads the list of institutions in serious trouble. But the Pakistan Railways, Pakistan Steel Mills, Wapda and others are not far behind. According to a recent report, the Pakistan Railways suffered a staggering operational loss of Rs3.39 billion for the fiscal year 2005-06. As for the performance of Wapda, the less is said about it the better.

We have also reached the depths as far as corruption is concerned. According to Transparency International, Pakistan’s score on the corruption perceptions index for 2006 on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to ten (squeaky clean) was 2.2 as against 3.3 for India, 3.8 for Turkey, 5.0 for Malaysia and 6.2 for United Arab Emirates. We had the dubious distinction of being rated with countries like Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone and a few others as the fifth most corrupt country in the world. In 2003, by way of comparison, we occupied the 11th position. So the level of corruption which was bad enough in 2003 has been going up.

On the economic front, suffice it to say that we have perhaps one of the most oppressive and exploitative systems in the world in which the rich are getting richer while the poor can hardly make both ends meet. High rates of inflation and unemployment have broken the back of the poor. In terms of percentage of GDP, the allocations for education and health remain abysmally low despite the government’s claims to the contrary.

President Musharraf has to realise that the present political dispensation, far from strengthening political stability in the country, has unleashed forces which strike at the very roots of national unity, harmony and progress, and thus carry the seeds of instability.

The only way out is the restoration of a democratic order in the country based on the return of the armed forces to the barracks to concentrate on their constitutional responsibilities, free and fair elections under an independent election a commission with the participation of the various political parties and their leaders exiled or otherwise, respect for law and the independence of judiciary, and commitment by the political parties to abide by democratic norms under the new set-up.

It is incumbent on the government and the opposition to rise above their vested interests in steering the country out of the present crisis on the road to political stability and economic progress and well-being. President Musharraf should take the lead by initiating the process of national reconciliation and the establishment of undiluted democracy through the involvement of all the political forces in the country and the return of exiled political leaders. History will not forgive him if he misses this opportunity.

The writer is a former ambassador.
E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com

THE US occupation of Iraq is a clear breach of international law. So why is the Bush administration “surprised” at the recent Saudi king’s description of American military presence in Iraq as “an illegal foreign occupation”? Maybe because the criticism came from where it was least expected.

Saudi criticism or not, the US occupation of Iraq seems doomed to failure. Iraq today is more than an “illegal occupation”, -- it’s a quagmire. The invasion has become a trail of blood and tears for America, with more than 3,000 US soldiers killed and many more maimed. The tragedy is far worse for Iraq, where the death toll since the invasion, according to one estimate, has exceeded half a million. As for Kenneth Edelman, the US neo-con who had predicted that the invasion of Iraq would be a “cakewalk”. He, along with his ilk, stands discredited. Instead of flowers and kisses, the Iraqi masses have showered American forces with bombs and sniper fires.

Iraq has exposed America’s Achilles heel. Like Vietnam, Iraq has shown the United States that even a superpower has limits and is vulnerable. Washington may occupy a country, but may not have the power to control the occupation’s aftermath.However, despite similarities between Iraq conflict and Vietnam war, Iraq is different — it has oil which Vietnam does not have. Iraq’s possession of vast reserves of oil means that the United States would never want to completely withdraw. The lure of cheap and plentiful oil will compel Washington to stay on in Iraq, even if the imposed presence would be untenable and costly.

But more about the Saudi king’s comments first. Riyadh wants to play a greater role in Iraq, but it cannot do so without winning credibility in the Muslim and Arab world. Any Saudi public whacking of America will play out well in the Arab streets. Lack of strong Saudi opposition to the US occupation of a brotherly country had damaged their standing among the Muslims, who bitterly recall the first US invasion of Iraq and the kingdom’s support for it.

The Saudi royal family has thrown its lot with the US since 1945, when King Abdul Aziz signed a secret oil-for-military-protection deal. This quid pro quo between Riyadh and Washington has stood the test of time. Even the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, in which 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, could not rupture this marriage of convenience.

While the Saudi criticism may be surprising, the kingdom’s desire to play a visible role in Iraq is not. In fact, Riyadh’s current posturing comes at the behest of the Bush administration, which wants Saudi Arabia to serve as a counterbalance to the growing influence of Iran. Through quiet diplomacy, Bush has tried to scare Saudi Arabia and Egypt about the growing Shia influence in the region and asked them to spread this message among fellow Arab rulers.

To some extent, this tactics has worked. Saudi Arabia recently hosted a meeting between the warring Palestinian groups, Hamas and Fattah, in Makkah in order to help them form a national unity government. Riyadh also has worked to bring together the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and the US-supported government of Fouad Siniora in Lebanon.

Ironically, the Saudis don’t want the United States to leave Iraq, fearing that it may result in the massacre of a beleaguered Sunni minority. Home to two of Islam’s holiest sites, Saudi Arabia considers itself the leader of the Sunni world. King Abdullah is reported to have warned American officials that Saudi Arabia might financially support Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the US pulled its troops out of Iraq.

Riyadh’s desire to protect the Sunni minority from the atrocities of the Shia majority is one thing, but for it to exhibit sectarianism is something else. Such on attitude would exacerbate the Shia-Sunni polarisation. Saudis must beware of the decades-old divide-and-rule British policy towards Muslims. It seems Tony Blair has successfully coached Bush to follow that strategy in the present crisis.

But propping up the Saudis as a bulwark against Iran is not going to solve Iraq’s problems. Iran has to be part of the solution. Even Saudi Arabia, a rival of Iran, realises this. In early March, King Abdullah personally greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Riyadh, a rare honour from an aging monarch. The two leaders reportedly talked about ending the tense situation in Lebanon between the Hezbollah and the Siniora government.

On his part, Bush seems to have finally agreed to engage with Iran and Syria. The Bush administration’s refusal to talk to Iran and Syria just didn’t make sense, especially when the US bipartisan Iraq Study Group had come to the conclusion that talking to Iran and Syria was inevitable.

Even now, though, Bush is trying to deal with Iran and Syria indirectly. He seems to be too embarrassed to admit that Iran has a vital role to play in any settlement of the conflict.

The news of the administration’s aboutface came last month in a guarded statement by its chief diplomat, Condoleezza Rice. “I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbours, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings,” Ms Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. “We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.”

The first of two conferences was held in Baghdad on March 10 and included the ambassadors of Iraq’s neighbours and all permanent members of the UN Security Council. It was a constructive step, but yielded few concrete answers to Iraq’s deep-rooted problems and did little to bridge the ideological divide between the United States and Iran.

The second conference will beheld this month at the foreign ministers level and also include representatives of the G-8 industrialised countries. The US wants to hold it in Istanbul, while Iran insists on having it in Baghdad.

Although the Iraqi government has long advocated a regional conference involving its neighbours, other countries have been included to avoid spotlight on the United States. Some of these non-regional countries have little to do with Iraq’s situation and are unlikely to make any contribution to a solution.

The conferences are a good start. What is needed next is a willingness on the part of the United States to accept that its illegal invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation are the main cause of instability in that country. Iran and Syria are simply taking advantage of Washington’s blunder and, given the state of America’s relations with Tehran and Damascus, they cannot be blamed for using it for their benefit.

The truth is that the civil war in Iraq is a product of the US invasion and its divide-and-rule policy. Shias and Sunnis had coexisted fairly well before and during Saddam Hussein’s rule. Washington must stop blaming the victims and start looking for real solutions.

The Saudi diplomacy and American rapprochement will be rendered useless if Washington decides to attack Iran, ostensibly to stop it from acquiring a nuclear bomb. There are strong indications that the United States might do just that. An attack on Iran would send the Middle East spiralling out of control and dash any hopes of a solution of the Iraq problem.

Seen against this backdrop, it’s heartening that the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in late March passed a bill, albeit narrowly, that would require most American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008. Bush has threatened to veto the bill and the Democrats do not seem to have the votes to override a presidential veto.

But here is the catch. The Democratic plan does not call for a complete withdrawal of US occupation forces from Iraq under any circumstances. Rather, it leaves the option for thousands of American soldiers to stay behind under various pretexts: training Iraqi forces, conducting the “war on terror”, and protecting American facilities, including its massive new embassy. Americans would never voluntarily leave the lucrative Iraqi oil fields for others to dominate.

As things stand, Washington has its excuses to maintain a sizable force in Iraq. The Iraqi government is requesting it, as are the Saudis, for safety reasons. The only way Americans would be forced to consider a total withdrawal is when Iraq’s Shias and Sunnis stop slaughtering each other and start rebuilding their country from the ashes of the war. It’s not America’s business to teach them how to be brothers.

The writer teaches mass communication at the Karachi University.
ekramhaque@gmail.com.

THE alarming escalation of violence in Balochistan indicates that, contrary to its claim, the government has only a tenuous grip on the law and order situation in the province. The same also holds good for other provinces where, for a variety of reasons, lawlessness is causing chaos and insecurity.

Balochistan’s history has been characterised by neglect and discrimination at the hands of successive governments at the centre. A true form of federal government, granting maximum provincial autonomy, as envisaged in the 1940 Lahore resolution, was the only way to keep all federating units satisfied. The federating units had chosen to join Pakistan because of the political and economic autonomy that was assured to them by no less a person than Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

Regrettably, however, after independence, federalism never existed in Pakistan and the smaller provinces were subjected to the worst kind of injustices. The inhabitants of Balochistan became the most impoverished people of the country despite the fact that their province was endowed with vast natural resources.

Successive governments at the centre also left Balochistan out of the development process. Time and again, this myopic and unpalatable attitude has triggered a wave of protests in the province which continue to underline the Baloch people’s frustration.

No worthwhile economic or industrial development has taken place in Balochistan since independence. It is necessary to eliminate all sources of Balochistan’s discontent by attaching priority to its political and economic aspirations. Islamabad should take a hard look at its existing Balochistan policy and change it radically to accommodate the demand for political and economic autonomy. This would go a long way towards ending the frustration of the Baloch.

It is, however, regrettable that the government does not seem to be willing to do so. Instead of addressing the causes of Balochistan’s grievances it continues to repeat the mistakes of the past. It has not hesitated to even take military action against the Baloch people when they clamoured for the restitution of their legitimate rights.

The ill-advised use of force, combined with the persistent denial of their political and economic rights by the centre, has discredited the government in the eyes of the Baloch people, particularly the young and radical elements among them.

The regional dynamics and Islamabad’s continued insensitivity towards the economic woes of Balochistan has not only alienated its population, there is also good reason to fear that Pakistan’s enemies could exploit this situation to undermine its territorial integrity. There are reports of the involvement of Indian intelligence agencies in the current turmoil in Balochistan.

Some also say that these agencies were responsible for the violence against the Chinese working in Balochistan. It may be recalled that three Chinese engineers working on the Gwadar port were gunned down in 2004 and in the same year, Gwadar airport was attacked by unknown assailants.

National integration has become a crucial issue in Pakistan. Separatist tendencies are on the rise in the country, particularly in Balochistan where people have taken up arms to fight for their rights. It would be unrealistic to assume that Pakistan is immune to the effects of fragmentation caused by nationalism. Religion, which was a driving force in the creation of Pakistan, has not been able to serve as an ideological foundation for its unity.

Some half-hearted efforts that were recently made by Islamabad to assuage the grievances of Balochistan were pathetically inadequate and did not produce the desired results. The only way to safeguard the legitimate interests of Balochistan and other smaller provinces in Pakistan is to accept and apply, in earnest, the principle of pluralism, which recognises diversity. In other words, instead of an oligarchy that controls the federal government, all the federating units maybe involved in this process.

It is believed that Pakistan’s fragmentation in 1971 could have been averted if its people, instead of remaining silent spectators, had played a proactive and decisive role in preventing its break-up. The people have a moral responsibility to help their compatriots in the smaller federating units and should not remain apathetic this time. Instead, they must fulfill their national obligation and persuade the ruling elites to address the discontent of Balochistan and other smaller provinces to avoid undesirable consequences.Pakistan is going through one of the most difficult phases of its history as a result of the on-going political polarisation, inter-provincial rivalries and religious extremism. It is indeed regrettable that while the world is moving towards peaceful coexistence and the integration of humanity, Pakistan is drifting towards ethnic and sectarian conflicts that could prove disastrous for the country and its people. There is, therefore, an urgent need to contain these negative trends on a priority basis to create national cohesion.

After 60 years of its establishment, Pakistan has yet to become a true democratic state. For obvious reasons, in the absence of a true democracy in the country the goal of national unity cannot be attained. It is, therefore, equally important to strengthen democracy in the country, a task that must be carried out despite the opposition of influential elements who have an interest in perpetuating their own power.

The writer is a former ambassador.