May 01, 2007	Tuesday	Rabi-us-Sani 13, 1428

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, April 30: Back channel contacts with the government are meant for transition to democracy and not for personal reprieve, according to the Pakistan People’s Party.

In a policy statement, the party’s spokesperson Farhatullah Babar said the “regime has been in contact with all political parties, including the PPP, for transition to democracy. However, no agreement has been reached on this issue”.

The Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) has, however, expressed its reservations about the contacts of PPP with the government. Chairman PML-N Raja Muhammad Zafarul Haq told this correspondent: “There is no room for back channel contacts under the spirit and text of the Charter of Democracy.”

He refused further comments when asked about his party’s strategy after the PPP’s ‘admission’ about contacts with the government.

Another senior PML-N leader, however, said: “It would be difficult for the PML-N to maintain an alliance with the PPP, if it failed to satisfy us and refuses to severe direct or indirect contacts with the government.”

Farhatullah Babar told Dawn that all critical decisions would be taken by the PPP “in consultation with the ARD”.

According to the statement, Mr Babar said it was “ridiculous to claim that the PPP will accept (Gen) Musharraf as uniformed president”. The party had repeatedly made it clear that it would be unconstitutional and illegal and would be opposed by it.

He said Benazir Bhutto had never said that the PPP would vote for Musharraf as President from the sitting Assemblies.

“The PPP would like to work for transition to democracy by the end of the year but all options are open. As for the PPP the decision to either strive for transition to democracy or opt for street agitation would be taken from the platform of ARD when the time for it comes.”

He said there was a “difference between contacts and settlement. The back channel contacts of the regime have not led to any settlement on issues in transition to democracy”, he said.

“If personal reprieve were its agenda, the PPP leaders would have sought it a long time ago, but it did not. It would not have undergone the rigours of exile and trial from court to court, city to city and country to country for over a decade from 1996,” he said.

The spokesman said: “No one should question the PPP’s commitment and its leadership to democracy. Which other political party has suffered as much ... for democracy as ... the PPP,” he asked?

He said that if the PPP got “enough votes” and the people voted for Ms Benazir “to be the prime minister for the third time, it would be an honour for the party and a manifestation of the trust of the people”.

However, it is “hypothetical and in the realm of speculation” to say “what will happen if (Gen) Musharraf is still around as president for the second term from the same assemblies even without the PPP vote and the PPP is voted into power” or Benazir “voted as the prime minister”, he said.

He claimed that Ms Benazir had never said that “the deal was a bitter pill” for democracy as reported in the media with reference to her speech in London School of Economic, he said.

He said that the issue that was to be addressed was how to proceed with the transition to democracy in the backdrop of terrorism and extremism. Issues of emphasis on street agitation or on transition to democracy are options for consideration at appropriate time, he said.