A confrontational course

THE landmark decision of the Supreme Court reinstating the Chief Justice and throwing out the reference against him has left General Musharraf with two options. The honourable thing would be to accept the overwhelming desire of the nation for a genuine democratic order in the country.

This would involve taking steps through a process of national reconciliation for the restoration of the Constitution as it was before the military takeover on October 12, 1999, the return of the armed forces to the barracks, the setting up of an interim government of national unity, and the holding of free and fair elections under a fully-empowered election commission with the participation of all political parties and leaders. This would be followed by the election of the president without uniform from the new assemblies.

If General Musharraf had followed the course of action outlined above, he would have regained the moral authority which he lost in the wake of the ill-advised reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan and its mishandling by the general’s minions. He would have led the country to political stability and calm through the healing touch of national reconciliation and the strengthening of representative institutions, in particular, the parliament. It would also have provided him with an honourable exit from the quagmire in which he is currently bogged down.

Unfortunately, instead of national reconciliation, the general seems to have opted for the path of confrontation. His decision to get himself re-elected from the present assemblies in uniform runs contrary to the spirit and norms of democracy as well as to the people’s sentiments prominently displayed during the agitation in support of the Chief Justice.

This decision also runs the risk of aggravating the existing polarisation in Pakistani politics and may prove to be the harbinger of further turmoil, chaos and instability in the country. It is, therefore, a sure recipe for disaster for the country and for Gen Musharraf’s ignominious exit from power.

Gen Musharraf is in the habit of claiming that national interest demands his re-election as president in uniform. By what logic he has reached this conclusion is not clear to anybody except perhaps his close confidantes whose vested interests are tied with his continuation in power.

Perhaps, like many others before him, he considers himself indispensable to the stability and survival of the country. The country existed before he came on the national scene and will survive long after he is gone. In any case, the nation can do without the political instability, lawlessness, denial of justice and deprivation that his eight-year rule has brought about.

But, more importantly, no single individual, howsoever powerful he may be, has the authority to define and interpret single-handedly the national interest of the country. National interest can be defined and refined only through a process of consultation among the various institutions of the state under the guidance of a government representing the will of the people.

The way Gen Musharraf rides roughshod over the various institutions of state (his failed attempt to subdue the judiciary being the latest example) has made a mockery of the process of consultation. But above all, the general does not represent anybody except himself, a coterie of generals and the unprincipled politicians around him.

His government, therefore, lacks the political legitimacy and the moral authority to define the national interest. His constant references to national interest in support of his rule are nothing more than a clever way to disguise his insatiable desire to continue to wield power unchecked by laws and rules.

One also finds quite amusing the daily declarations by Musharraf and his supporters that the general would get himself re-elected in uniform from the present assemblies since this is the requirement of the Constitution.

Since when has the general become so fond of the Constitution? Was it after the overthrow of a democratically-elected and constitutionally-established government on October 12, 1999? Was it after he engineered the ouster of a Chief Justice and a few other judges of the Supreme Court to get his coup validated? Or was it after he pushed the Seventeenth Amendment down the throat of an unwilling nation with the connivance of some self-serving politicians with the objective of assuming unlimited powers?

Whatever the truth, it is obvious to national and international observers that democracy and a president in uniform cannot go together. In a genuine democracy, the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, prevails.

A chief of army staff occupying simultaneously the office of the president and thereby controlling the various institutions of state including the parliament is the very anti-thesis of democracy. The election of a serving COAS to the office of the president, therefore, cannot be justified in a democracy, politically or morally.

Gen Musharraf’s intention to seek re-election to the office of the president from the existing assemblies whose own term is expiring is politically unacceptable and morally reprehensible. If he needs the mandate for another term, he must seek it afresh from the people of Pakistan. That can happen only if he seeks re-election from the new assemblies rather than the outgoing ones whose own mandate is coming to an end.

As for the constitutional provisions about which Gen Musharraf seems so concerned now, his legal wizards can point out ways to get them suitably amended to allow the election of the president from the new assemblies.

The movement launched by the lawyers against a blatant attempt by a military government to subdue the judiciary was not only for the restoration of the independence of the judiciary but also for a genuine democracy in the country and for putting an end to the involvement of the armed forces in politics.

The restoration of the Chief Justice was only the first step in the struggle for the realisation of these laudable objectives. One is encouraged by the statements coming from the leadership of the legal community indicating that they are aware of the battles that lie ahead.

It would, however, be unfair and unrealistic to place the whole burden for the restoration of a genuine democracy in the country on the shoulders of the legal community. The political parties have their own important role to play in this regard. These parties and their leaders, whether in the country or abroad, should come up to expectations in this national struggle to get rid of military rule and establish a democratic system of governance in the country.

They must understand that the time for “deals” and palace intrigues which weaken this struggle is past. The people of Pakistan have awakened and those parties and leaders who try to give a new lease of life to the present military-dominated government will pay a heavy political price during the next elections. In fact, it is clear that the process of taking such parties and leaders to task has already begun.

There is also another category of self-serving politicians, mostly belonging to the ruling party, who are trying to scare the people that if they persist in their demands for a genuine democracy and a president without uniform, it would result in the imposition of martial law.

However, these tactics are unlikely to work. The people are fully aware of the colossal damage that martial laws and the military regimes, including the present one, have inflicted upon the state and its institutions in the past resulting in stunted political evolution, endemic political instability and elitism that together have led to the denial of justice, lawlessness and deprivation and great income inequality.

Under these circumstances, contrary to the past, the people are not likely to take lying down any declaration of martial law. There are also signs that many political parties and leaders, except those enjoying the patronage of the present military government, have learnt from their past mistakes and will no longer play into the hands of the military establishment. Further, a martial law would amount to acceptance of a political defeat by Musharraf and might sound the death knell for his rule.

Finally, Musharraf and his minions frequently justify the present quasi-military rule on the basis of the serious external challenges faced by Pakistan at the regional and international levels. The argument couldn’t be more fallacious. In times like these, the country needs a government which enjoys the full support and mandate of the people won through fair and free elections.

A military dictatorship, lacking the mandate of the people, is a fragile structure which, as our own history shows, can crumble easily in the face of external pressures.

Ideally, General Musharraf should have shown statesmanship and chosen the path of national reconciliation for the restoration of genuine democracy in the country. Instead, it appears from his latest statements that he has embarked upon the path of confrontation. The course of action adopted by him can only lead to political turmoil and instability in the country. Since a government lacking political support is ill-placed to face external challenges, it may even lead the nation to a foreign policy disaster.

Despite the internal and external dangers looming ahead, it would be unrealistic to expect General Musharraf to change course. It appears from his past conduct, especially from the recent judicial crisis, that more than principles and scruples, the general understands the language of power.Civil society in Pakistan, therefore, must play its own role in blocking the efforts of the military establishment led by General Musharraf to prolong its rule in the country. As they say, eternal vigilance is the essential requirement of freedom and democracy.

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

Party vs government

AFTER the death of Liaquat Ali Khan, who was also president of the ruling Muslim League, someone had the good sense to separate the party office from that of the country’s chief executive. So, for some years after that Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman was president of the Pakistan Muslim

League, followed by Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. How did the government run under

that arrangement, and why can’t it now?

As PM, Mian Nawaz Sharif did well to bring about a separation of the two offices, but unfortunately he failed to apply the formula to his own person and to the provincial chief ministers. I am sure some of his advisers must have told him that he would be setting a bad precedent if he did that.

Such advisers are always against their bosses adopting any measure to share power. I can imagine them saying, “One can’t trust people nowadays, Mian Shib, you never know what the party president may do.”

This happens because the political party in power is less powerful than its ruling wing. In Pakistan parties are not programmed to provide inspiration and implement manifestoes but to exercise clout by coming into power and forming governments. This reminds me of a story. A top newspaperman had gone to interview former prime minister Margaret Thatcher about the then on-going contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

He was received at 10, Downing Street and conducted to Mrs Thatcher’s office not by her usual press secretary but by a press officer of the party.

When he asked the latter about this he was told that since the interview was not with the prime minister but with a candidate for the leadership of the Tories, the official press secretary could not be present.

At that time I wondered whether such principles could ever form part of the conduct of a prime minister in Pakistan or that of a chief minister.

Since these elected dignitaries do not even wish to make a distinction between their official status and their position as party heads, the incident came as a surprise. I have watched our prime ministers and chief ministers, ostensibly caretakers, running their election campaign with the help of the paraphernalia available to them in their official capacity. They didn’t pause for a moment to think they were doing anything wrong.

As an old official of the publicity set-up of the government I have seen government transport blatantly used for electioneering without any consideration for the legality of such use and even its propriety.

Maybe the reason for all this is that, for long years, presidents, prime ministers and chief ministers have been tempted to retain party offices because, otherwise, the party boss could dictate to the chief executive on policy issues, or even ask him to explain acts of omission and commission.

Since the very thought of this was anathema, the only way out for them was to be chief of the party also, whether the party was the Muslim League or the PPP.

But despite that undesirable practice, things were not as bad as they have been in recent times when the dividing line between the two offices couldn’t even be seen with a magnifying glass.

Also, indulging in politics by bureaucrats of all ranks and overlapping of government and party functions was not so blatant. If done at all it was with a feeling of guilt. Let me tell you a story in which I was personally involved.

The scene is more than fifty years ago in Lyallpur (as it was then called) where a three-day session of the Muslim League Council was being held with Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin presiding as chief of the party. Naturally the Punjab president of the party, Chief Minister Mumtaz Daultana, was also there. The information department was present in full force. I was then a junior information officer in Punjab.

On the first day of the session I circulated a note in the press gallery that reporters could avail themselves of the services of our transport to send their despatches to Lahore in the evening when a van would be going to the capital in any case. A harmless bit of PR activity to help journalists. Or so I thought.

Imagine my consternation and panic, when, in the Punjab Assembly session after about a fortnight, a question was tabled by an opposition member asking why Hafizur Rahman had offered government transport to facilitate the reporting of a party event, on whose order and on what authority he had done so, and what disciplinary action was being taken against him for this misdemeanour.

Fortunately for me, the questioner, MLA Sheikh Mahboob Ilahi of Lyallpur, was an old friend of my father.

When he came to know that I was the culprit, and that I was on the verge of a nervous collapse because of his question, he was good enough to withdraw it.

Such was the fear of an assembly question in those days and such was the sanctity of the line drawn between the official status and the party role of an elected leader. And this thought was ever present in the minds of all government functionaries.

So much so that if the prime minister or a chief minister was presiding over a party gathering, or addressing a public meeting organised by the ruling party, the Commissioner and the DIG and other officers scrupulously kept themselves away.

They would be at hand but were never visible, what to say of sitting prominently on the dais as they do nowadays. I am glad to say that caretaker PMs Moeen Qureshi and Meraj Khalid abstained from providing official facilities to anyone in the successor teams for the general elections held in their time.

So this was the way that a distinction was maintained between the government and the ruling political party.

Living with a big neighbour

THE Dawn News-The Indian Express-CNN-IBN opinion poll conducted in 30 major cities of India and Pakistan on the 60th anniversary of their independence has come under attack from cynics. How can 30,000 urbanites represent one billion plus and 160 million people, the majority of whom live in the countryside?

Without doubt, no pollster worth his salt would give this exercise serious credence. But if the poll is used as a pointer to show which way the wind is blowing it can be quite instructive.

It has exploded some myths perpetuated by the establishments on both sides of the borders. The perception of the other being an enemy country has been propagated every so often that India-Pakistan relations have come to be based on the false premise that their ties can only be of an adversarial nature. This has served the vested interests in both countries who have exploited this impression to create a crisis situation from time to time.

The above-mentioned poll indicates that a substantial number of people on both sides of the Wagah border think otherwise. They do not want another war. They would prefer to see their disputes resolved through negotiations — that is how 80 per cent of Pakistani respondents and 78 per cent of the Indians answered the relevant question.

True, the people on the two sides do not see eye to eye on many issues that form the landmarks of the history of the subcontinent, the most notable being Partition. But what is encouraging is the pragmatic approach of many who want to leave the past behind and move on. The direction in which they want to proceed now should lead to peace. There is a fringe element in both countries that still speaks of war being the only method to resolve disputes.

Of course, the question to be asked is will an India-Pakistan détente be achieved? Even the most scientifically conducted survey cannot answer this question.

There are two aspects of this situation that cannot be ignored. First, détente is achieved by the concerted policies of governments and not the people. In our part of the world, government policies do not always reflect the wishes of the people.

The flip side is the desire of a substantial number of Pakistanis to cling to the past and the despondency in them that prevents them from hoping for an improvement in India-Pakistan relations. The Indians, as the pro-status quo power, are more confident.

This should leave us wondering as to what should be Islamabad’s policy line vis-à-vis India?

There is a section of opinion in Pakistan which believes that we have to respond to India’s adventurism especially its tendency to act as the ‘bully in the region’. It must be emphasised here that the need is for pragmatism and rationality from Pakistan as the smaller state.

In the first place, the composite dialogue should be sustained with a new political commitment. In no case should we revert to the earlier state of deadlocked relations marked with vitriolic exchanges.

The problem that has obstructed progress in the dialogue is the distrust that marks the ties between the two countries which is symbolised by the dispute over Kashmir.

It is ironical that Pakistanis focus so sharply on Kashmir when the Kashmiris themselves choose not to reciprocate this sentiment.

They would prefer to be independent. For this reversal of opinion — in the early post-Independence years they favoured accession to Pakistan — we have to thank the militants who went to fight a jihad in the Kashmir Valley and Jammu and only succeeded in antagonising the local population.

At the moment, Pakistan has been destabilised by its domestic constitutional and political crises and the war against terrorism that has been thrust on it thanks to President Musharraf’s policy of using the Islamist militants to promote the military’s strategic goals. This is no time to open a new front with India. Don’t we have enough on our plate to keep us occupied?

In case the opinion poll has not got it right and the people do not support a peace initiative, it is time to educate them about the advantages of peace, especially for a country that is not in a position to take on a neighbour seven times its size in terms of population and that has an economy that is seven times larger. It is counter-productive for Pakistan to enter into an arms race with India. This race will drain us of all our resources and destroy us more effectively than a war ever would.

The deleterious effects of our high defence expenditure (3.3 per cent of GDP) are already evident. In spite of its own massive defence budget (three per cent of GDP) India has enough resources to spend $22.8billion on education. Pakistan’s education budget is a measly $1.9billion. Small wonder, India has 130,000 researchers engaged in R&D when Pakistan has only 13,700.

It cannot be denied that the man in the street takes a cue from the government.

Had our leadership been preaching the virtues of pacifism and building the defences of peace in the minds of men, no sections of Pakistanis would have emerged as advocates of war as they are made out to be in some quarters.

In a television programme screened by Dawn News on the opinion poll, Imran Khan, our cricketing hero-turned-politician, could not have put it more aptly when he remarked that a country cannot change its neighbours. One may add, you have to learn to live with them.

Keeping a closer eye

IT is a crisis, we are told. There are borrowers in distress; hedge funds blowing up; banks not sure how much collateral damage they have on their balance sheets. The trouble is, what looks like a catastrophe in Canary Wharf resembles no such thing in Carlisle or Kettering –– anywhere, in fact, that has not got an industry based on trading obscurely named bits of paper–– all those collateralised debt obligations, loan obligations and the like.

It is hard to assess what effect any of the carnage in markets is having on the actual economy. Understandably, the politicians want to reassure us. According to the chancellor, Alistair Darling, the UK economy is “strong against a background of a strong global economy”.

Hank Paulson, his counterpart in the US — the epicentre of this turmoil - predicted it would “extract a penalty” from the US economy, but not lead to recession.

So that is alright, then. Except that a couple of days after Mr Paulson’s comments were published, the US central bank cut one of its interest rates, warning “the downside risks to growth have increased appreciably”.

Which just goes to prove what most people already suspected: that bad times for the rocket scientists of finance means bad times for the rest of us.

That applies to Britain as much as the US. Of all the G7 club of rich nations, the UK is among the most reliant on financial services: economist Stephen Lewis calculates that, of the thee per cent growth Britain enjoyed in the year up to June, finance and business services accounted for around 1.3 per cent.

No wonder that few talk any more of interest rates hitting six per cent; now it is predicted that monetary policy will get looser.

Some cavil at the prospect of rate cuts for the super-rich. There is certainly a thin line between simply reflating the credit bubble that began all this trouble ––and preventing much greater financial, and thus economic, instability.

What would make the US rate cut –– and all the billions that central banks have pumped into markets over the past few days –– more than a handout for bankers would be if officials were in return to take greater regulatory powers.

The bursting of this particular bubble has been followed by the traditional round of finger-pointing - but that is not enough. After the emerging-markets crisis of 1997-98, the debt-rating agencies, without whose approval big borrowers cannot raise loans, were accused of lax standards and came in for a forest’s worth of stick - which was all forgotten as soon as the next market boom began.

Now they are in hot water again and the European commission is rightly considering a full-blown inspection. There is a simple problem with only three agencies having oversight of every commercial creditor: the borrower pays for their own rating. Even agency employees admit “the system does not smell right”.

Financiers have erected a pyramid of debt over the past few years: from the American mortgage brokers who encouraged dodgy borrowers to state their own incomes and assets; to the banks that mashed up all those home loans into financial sausage meat –– just as wholesome as the real-world equivalent- and sold them on; to the institutions that bought up these IOUs and now do not know what they are worth.

Yet any time a politician or a regulator has raised so much as an eyebrow at the great debt party, the financiers have told them to back off.

Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, suggested this year that the hedge funds could do with a bit more supervision - and she was derided. The UK’s Financial Services Authority warned last year that private-equity borrowing was “excessive” –– and it got pelted with green-ink letters from the buyout firms for using such a word.

Yet merely leaving financial markets be is unsustainable: sooner or later they get into trouble; the wider economy is put in jeopardy; and officials are forced to dole out cash. As the past month has again demonstrated, what the financiers do affects the rest of us. It is time the rest of us made them more accountable.

— The Guardian, London