THERE appears to be no end to the uncertainty and turmoil that has engulfed the nation ever since the regime’s ill-fated move on March 9 to oust the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This was followed by the May 12 carnage in Karachi that was another damning indictment of the regime. Nevertheless, the July 20 Supreme Court decision restoring the Chief Justice was a defining moment that restored the nation’s faith and confidence in the judiciary.

But the sordid events that unfolded on Sept 10 represent another first in this country’s short but chequered history of confrontation between state authority and popular will. It is not as if earlier governments were paragons of virtue. Many of their actions were illegal and it is the cumulative effect of their misuse of power that has contributed to the current malaise.

However, nothing can compare with the government’s brazen effort to prevent the return of a Pakistani citizen and that too, in pursuance of the Supreme Court’s verdict reiterating a citizen’s inalienable right to residence in his/her homeland and categorical instructions that nothing be done to prevent the exercise of this right.

The government may claim that its draconian measures were a success for they resulted in Mr Nawaz Sharif’s exile again. The regime may have won the battle that day but this may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory, for its already tarnished reputation suffered a battering that has left its supporters embarrassed and the nation in a state of shock and anger. Thus, the price the regime will have to pay, both at home and abroad, is likely to be incalculable.

That neither democratic rules nor international law permit the forcible deportation of any national to a foreign country is an indisputable fact. Moreover, once Mr Nawaz Sharif was served with a NAB arrest warrant, it became even more incumbent on the government to ensure his continued presence in Pakistan for legal proceedings to be initiated and for the accused to mount his defence. But by deporting him and that too, by deception, the government exposed its malicious intent.

It is, however, the unprecedented overt involvement of foreign powers in this episode that primarily interests me. In particular, Saudi Arabia’s role raises many questions. Admittedly, the kingdom has been a strong and steadfast friend of Pakistan, frequently coming to its aid and assistance. Consequently, it has earned the respect and admiration of Pakistanis, who have felt a strong sense of kinship and solidarity with the Saudi people and its rulers. It was this unique relationship that made its efforts in 1977 to promote reconciliation between Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the opposition alliance welcome to both sides. This also explains why its interest in the well-being of Mr Nawaz Sharif, that resulted in his transfer to Jeddah, aroused little opposition in Pakistan.

The Saudi intelligence chief’s appearance in Islamabad, espousing a partisan position in support of the regime, was a dramatic departure from the Saudi tradition of refraining from public involvement in the domestic affairs of other countries. Riyadh should have known that the Musharraf regime, thanks to its inept policies and authoritarian nature, had aroused anger and hostility in the country.

Once Mr Sharif had reiterated his resolve to return home, propriety and sagacity demanded of the Saudis to recognise the sensitivities of the situation and to seek to excuse themselves from this issue.

Friends of Saudi Arabia (and I count myself as one), seek to justify the Saudi stand on the ground that they undertook this mission only under pressure from the Bush administration. Though there is some evidence to support this contention, the Saudis should, nevertheless, have refrained from an initiative that has, for the first time, dragged them into the vortex of a raging domestic controversy.

The US role in all this was, of course, predictable. While characterising the event as Pakistan’s internal matter, US sympathy and support for the Musharraf regime has been no secret. Moreover, the Bush administration faces a serious dilemma. Iraq is virtually a lost cause and there are few takers for General Petraeus’s claim that the much hyped “surge” has brought about any improvement.

News from the Afghan front is only marginally better. Osama bin Laden appears to be not only alive but kicking as well. In such a situation, the last thing the Bush administration is willing to countenance is its loyal and faithful ally in Pakistan go down the tube. Washington will continue to demand that Islamabad “do more”, but it recognises that the general has done more to promote the US agenda than would be possible for any ruler and certainly not an elected political dispensation.

At the same time, it recognises that the regime has lost both its “clean” image as well as its aura of invincibility. Its credibility and effectiveness, too, have suffered as evident from the kidnapping of its soldiers by militants in the tribal areas. Washington is, therefore, not prepared to take any chances at this time. But as Gen Zinni, the former Centcom chief, emphasised in the Washington Post this week, Musharraf has provided invaluable services to the US.

The alternatives are both uncertain and unattractive. The US has, therefore, been promoting a formula under which Musharraf would retain real power while Benazir Bhutto would provide a civilian façade to the regime.

Mr Nawaz Sharif’s insistence on returning home, and that too when the regime’s negotiations with Ms Bhutto were in its final stages, appeared to upset this delicate arrangement. The New York Times recently quoted an official as admitting that Sharif’s exile would facilitate a Musharraf-Bhutto deal.

When in Washington last month, I had gathered that the administration appeared to have bought the regime’s subtle argument that Nawaz Sharif would be too nationalist for Washington’s comfort and his close ties to the religious parties would make him a less effective partner of the US in the global war on terror.

This may explain the Bush administration’s reservations about Nawaz Sharif, but the Saudi involvement in this “game plan” has brought them down a notch in their moral authority. Of course, the Musharraf regime cannot be absolved of some responsibility in dragging the Saudis into its naked demonstration of raw power.

The regime is sounding smug, confident that Nawaz Sharif’s renewed exile has rid it of its primary opponent. Deputy Secretary John Negroponte may choose to call the regime “a voice of moderation and reason in the Islamic world”, but that is not how the people of Pakistan view the current set-up.

Not surprisingly, Ambassador Schaeffer, a leading South Asia expert has observed that Musharraf is “set on a course for more autocratic rule.” At this critical juncture in this nation’s history, the people of Pakistan expect the US to promote genuine democracy, and not try to prop up an increasingly unpopular, authoritarian regime.

AFTER May 12 — the day Karachi experienced brutal carnage — a number of conferences were held in the city to bring various political parties together. I had a chance to attend a few. It was surprising, in fact shocking, to see that in spite of a sizable presence of women in legislative bodies, their representation in these conferences was missing. Why? Were they not invited? Or do they not have any opinion of their own? Or are their views simply not counted?

On enquiring from the organisers, I failed to get a convincing reply. They were totally dismissive when I raised the issue of the missing female voices. Later, when I contacted some women office-bearers and legislators, I learnt that they had not been told about the meetings. Their male colleagues considered politics to be their domain. The women’s wings of the political parties are mobilised when a party needs to show its strength or when extra hands are needed for tedious electoral activities such as compiling voters’ lists, door-to-door canvassing or acting as polling agents.

But that is not what women want. A political activist, who attended the All Parties Women’s Conference organised by the Aurat Foundation last week in Karachi, said that she wanted the women’s wings of political parties to be made autonomous, financially independent and part of the decision-making process.

Some participants wanted the women’s wings to be abolished. However, the majority felt these should be retained but given decision-making powers. It was significant that women of different parties — from the treasury and the opposition — could engage in a positive dialogue and come up with a joint declaration.

In South Asia, power politics, especially the electoral process, is becoming increasingly violent. The extensive use of firearms and sophisticated weapons and the induction by political parties of criminal elements who resort to strong-arm tactics, often results in the terrorising and killing of innocent people.

The state has failed in its primary role of maintaining law and order and protecting the lives of citizens. In some cases, the state itself has become a major actor in the game of violence that is being played in the region.

Can women’s enhanced participation in politics make a difference? As an activist I would unhesitatingly say yes. We have documented histories of women from conflict-ridden zones of Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America which tell us how women have been cleaning up the mess created by bloody wars and have been rebuilding their societies.

Several examples can be quoted to show how women are consolidating themselves to form a ‘critical mass’. Of course, one should not draw the conclusion that all women are pacifist by nature. All one can conclude is that their concerns are different and they have displayed more passion for a peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue.

This was also reflected in the joint declaration issued by the conference, which says:

1- We demand a total ban on the use and display of arms by political parties. They should not use coercion or force to extract support or to suppress dissent.

2- Parties should hold regular elections to choose their office-bearers and should practise democratic norms and cultivate a culture of tolerance.

3- Parties should issue more tickets to women and also offer financial support for their election expenses.

4- They should disqualify all those members who use derogatory language and get involved in anti-women decisions through jirgas. Even if a party issues a ticket to such a person, the Election Commission should reject their nominations.

The women delegates were also united in demanding more space and an equal share for minorities in electoral politics. It was noted that though the joint electorate system had been restored in the last election, electoral rolls and polling stations in some areas are separate for the minorities. This makes them vulnerable to pressure and coercion from political parties. The Election Commission should take note of it.The prerequisite of a graduation degree for the candidates introduced in the last election is absurd. With a literacy rate of 29 per cent, women find themselves at a disadvantage. This academic requirement closes the door for those grassroots women who have experience and courage but no degree. This has served to strengthen the feudal political culture of Pakistan by enabling feudal leaders to have a proxy representation in parliament by getting their daughters, sisters or daughters-in-law elected.

For over 25 years, women activists have demanded 33 per cent of the seats in parliament. They have won only 17 per cent. Arguably, the role of women parliamentarians, their quality and effectiveness have been questioned, but it cannot be denied that they have made a positive impact as well. The record of the assemblies show that it is women who take their work seriously and always make the quorum. To my knowledge, whenever women’s issues have been raised in the assembly, a woman member has been the one to bring it up.

Take the example of the Sindh Assembly. During its tenure three bills were moved by the opposition members: the Domestic Violence against Women Bill, the Need for Shelters Bill and the Gender Harassment Bill. Women members were the sponsors of all of them. Unfortunately, these bills were not brought before the House. But that is another issue.

The entire tenure of the Assembly was marred by protests, polemics and polarisation, which reflects negatively on our political culture. The opposition is not allowed to play its role when it wants to. Our parliamentarians are not used to a democratic way of governance. They need to go through several elections and a continuity of democratic process to change their mindset.

The conference participants recognised the need for a cross-party caucus for women in order to fulfil their role of improving the lot of Pakistani women, besides changing attitudes dominant in men.

The women’s movement had not envisaged selective representation on reserved seats. As was provided for by the 1956 constitution, we have been lobbying for women’s constituencies where women parliamentarians should be elected directly by the voters. This method will give women politicians the experience of direct elections and also make them accountable to their constituents. It will release women from the apron strings of their parties and free them from male domination while creating space for independent women candidates.

The idea of direct elections is appealing but there is need for financial support by the party where it is required. It is also important to run a campaign for registering as many women voters as possible.

After all, 33 per cent of union councillors have been elected directly. In spite of their limitations and challenges, many of them have shown a lot of grit and skill. They have facilitated the construction of schools, roads, sewerage systems, dispensaries and parks. There are failures due to a rotten system but what some women have been able to do in the face of all kinds of hindrances deserves our recognition.

Women at the grassroots know their problems well. They have a lot of potential, and given an enabling environment can perform wonders. Some of the city councillors present at the conference demanded that they should also be picked up as candidates for the assemblies, since they have more experience working at the grassroots. I think this is a good idea. Political parties should consider them as potential candidates for the general seats in the next elections.

The immediate need is to end polarisation and create a culture of tolerance amongst the political parties. A cross-party women’s caucus is one platform which can at least initiate a dialogue towards that end. Civil society should support such efforts in spite of their disillusionment with the political parties.

The writer is the resident director of Aurat Foundation, Karachi.

Email: rdkhi@af.org.pk

THE thing to remember about General David Petraeus’s report to Congress on the progress made by the US military “surge” in Iraq is that he is basically reporting on his own performance.

Nothing in his past career suggests that he is prone to downplay his own achievements, and since he took command of US forces in Iraq in February his briefings have invariably been upbeat. The probability that he was going to say that it is now time to give up and go home from Iraq was always zero.

At Petraeus’s level of responsibility there is no such thing as a non-political general. He was chosen by and reports to a White House whose occupant has vowed that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq while he is in office. The two American generals who shared the command responsibility in Iraq when President George W. Bush first proposed the “surge” strategy late last year were fired when they did not back it. Of course Petraeus supports it.

So why are his opinions being treated with such reverence in political Washington, as if he were an independent auditor called in to assess the situation? Because the deeper truth is that none of the major players is really willing to pull the plug on the Iraq fiasco until after next year’s election. Meanwhile, everybody is just marking time and Petraeus is their excuse for continuing to do so.

Republicans are lumbered with a president and vice-president who will not be running in the next election and who are determined to prove they were right to invade Iraq no matter what the political cost to their own party. The party elders believe that popular anger at the war will lose them the White House in November 2008, but they do not believe that an open rebellion against Bush’s Iraq policy would achieve anything except to split the party.

The Democrats scent victory in 2008, but are hyper-sensitive about accusations that they are betraying the troops, so they will not try to use their Congressional majorities to cut off funding for the war. They also calculate, quite rightly, that it is the quagmire in Iraq that makes their victory in 2008 so likely, so why deprive themselves of the best stick to beat the Republicans with by shutting the war down prematurely?

This explains the relatively easy ride that General Petraeus and his civilian counterpart, US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker, have had in Washington. All Petraeus had to do was promise that the number of American troops in Iraq would be back down to last November’s level by November of 2008, which was hardly a significant concession since the US army could not sustain the “surge” past next summer anyway.

In effect, President Bush’s “surge” strategy has bought him two whole years with the US troop level in Iraq at or above 130,000, but has it actually achieved anything else? Despite Petraeus’s obligatory optimism, the answer is probably no. There is no sign that the weak and divided Iraqi government will become cohesive and effective, or that the Iraqi army will become capable of independent operations and grow into a truly national force.

The British are leaving southern Iraq to the rule of the militias. Open confrontation between the Kurds and the government in Baghdad over the territory around Kirkuk and Mosul grows ever harder to avoid, but that confrontation would break the one alliance that provides a modicum of political stability at the centre.

The parliament’s only achievement has been to resist the US-backed oil bill that would open two-thirds of the nation’s oil reserves to exploitation by foreign oil companies: well done, but hardly enough.

One Iraqi in seven has been forced out of his or her home and become a refugee (two million refugees abroad, and two million displaced people within Iraq). US military dead will reach the 4,000 mark by December, and probably 5,000 by next year’s election. Iraq is not fixed. It is not even on the mend.––Copyright