BEFORE the imposition of martial law on Nov 3, Pakistan was struggling with two critical challenges to its political stability.

One was the subversion of civilian, representative rule, an issue the nation-state had confronted since 1958 when the first martial law was imposed on Pakistan.

The other challenge had its roots in the more recent, but far more bloody vintage of the 1980s. Militancy that exploits religion, which incubated with Gen Ziaul Haq’s security apparatus and state ideology, has grown into a full-scale terrorist insurgency today. Major portions of the Tribal Areas, the NWFP, some territory in the Northern Areas, and now two-thirds of Swat, have ceded ground to non-state actors, both foreign and local.

Today the country is back in the quagmire of both dictatorship and terrorism. Gen Musharraf has once again called a martial law an emergency, as he did in 1999. An emergency suspends fundamental human rights, but falls short as an instrument that can send the judiciary packing. Judges cannot be made to swear fresh oaths of allegiance, and therefore may not provide the judgments required to prop unconstitutional measures.

An emergency does not require a PCO for its imposition. A PCO, or Provisional Constitution Order, entails a suspension of the Constitution of the state, substituting it with a martial law, which can only be imposed by a chief of army staff. Under a martial law, there is no source of justice other than PCO courts, and dictators are provided a veneer of legal cover. So let’s first call a spade a spade. Pakistan is under martial law today, not emergency rule. The assemblies, whether constitutional until Nov 15 or under the PCO, are alive so that they can provide a democratic window-dressing.

The PCO cabinet has already given its rubberstamp to the emergency, and the military’s surrogates in parliament pushed it through the National Assembly as well. All these acts are post-PCO and have no bearing on the facts on the ground that Gen Musharraf has already created. There is one man-rule in the country and that is propped only by the use of force.

Which is why Gen Musharraf’s announcement of a general election in February and his stepping down as army chief before that has been received with general scepticism.

The reason why Pakistan is under martial law today is not so that terrorism can be contained as the disingenuous promulgation order says. It is under martial law so that the possibility of an adverse judgment by the former benches of the newly independent superior judiciary on Gen Musharraf’s eligibility to hold two offices could be avoided. Nothing more, nothing less.

If terrorism was the issue, why are peaceful opponents of martial law and terrorism being detained and brutalised all over the country? If terrorism was the objective, why were Asma Jehangir, Aitzaz Ahsan, I.A. Rehman, Iqbal Haider and hundreds of lawyers like PPP’s Ahsan Bhoon, and civil society activists detained? Do they look like the sort of people who run into crowded buses and buildings to maim and kill in the name of religion?

Why are wanted criminals allowed to hold press conferences openly threatening the life of Ms Benazir Bhutto for her anti-terrorism clarity? Why have 25 terrorists been released after the imposition of martial law? Why is a peaceful tourist backwater like Swat overrun by foreign and Pakistani militants? Is the state only able to establish its writ now through the law of the jungle?

If terrorism is the objective, why has the investigation on the massacre of Oct 19 in Karachi not been treated as an urgent priority? Why was evidence hastily cleaned up, and why is a Pakistan-led independent police inquiry not being assisted by Scotland Yard or the FBI as many enquiries have been in the past? Why is the death of 160 innocent people who were victims of terror being treated like a non-event? Do the culprits not need to be nabbed?

If terrorism was the objective why has the independent media been blacked out? Why have cable networks been jammed and why have satellite alternatives been the object of crackdowns by the state? Why has the print media been given press advice, and why is a new ‘code of conduct’ being formulated by the regime to gag the press? Why has Pakistan been thrust back into the dark days of the 1980s, when political leaders were either killed, tortured, arrested or driven underground?

Clearly, none of the actions described have anything to do with curbing terrorism. In fact, quite to the contrary, history has taught us that Pakistan has only drifted towards crises during military clampdowns. Extremism and polarisation flourish when democracy is under lockdown.

But structural and fundamental disconnects are not the only problem in such a scenario. When the sixth largest standing army in the world busies itself with manipulative politics through coups and double coups, it begins to lose focus. It loses ground in the public eye as an institution that rules the nation instead of serving it.

The pseudo-jihadist officials who served Zia’s fundamentalist agenda by creating an anti-PPP political alliance in the shape of the IJI by funnelling state money into slush funds and diverted Afghan resistance petro-dollars into powerful non-state proxies are back in action today. They subverted the aims of a professional army and democratic politicians by using intelligence resources to serve their own covert agenda then, and are trying to do the same again today with the same line-up of reactionary political proxies.

The opposition is gearing up to challenge this reversal from a transition to democracy. The PPP was the only party that sees a peaceful transition to democracy as a priority. Its negotiations with the regime were for movement towards democracy, not to prop a dictatorship.

The PPP chairperson’s return to Pakistan from Dubai was a brave step to lead the nation and the party in this moment of crisis. Her call to take the protest to the streets came after months of attempts to avoid more bloodshed, as Pakistan can ill-afford more instability. The PPP has been consistent in its position in calling for a restoration of the Constitution, the stepping down of General Musharraf as army chief, respect for the judiciary, a free and fair election on schedule, under a reconstituted Election Commission, and the removal of the curbs on the media as the only route to democracy.

Slapping a ban on the PPP’s Rawalpindi rally will only roil the streets further, as will any bid to immobilise Ms Bhutto by house arrest before the Nov 13 long march from Lahore. The PPP showed its non-violent mass support on Oct 18, yet at the same time no one can doubt the party’s ability or record to resist dictatorships, as it stands firm in the face of bullets and persecution.

The message to democratic politicians is that we will once again have to fight with our lives, on the streets, for the right to elect our own leadership and for the rule of law to return to Pakistan. Democracy and its attendant institutions have never been given a chance to take root, and now this is a fight for the survival of Pakistan. The military regime is no longer at a place where it can guarantee peace, stability and governance to the people of Pakistan alone, and for the first time, the whole world can see that this is true.

The writer is the central information secretary of the PPP.

THE futile debate on whether Pakistan needed to proceed on the path of ‘transition’ or work towards a ‘transformation’, which took up a fair deal of space in these columns, must surely be over. Unless, of course, the events unfolding in front of us every hour are also part of some transitional plan to democracy to which only those who supported the ‘transition’ are privy.The false binary that had been created by some of the writers writing in the Pakistani press, as well as in a number of editorials, posing the two as possible choices, said a great deal about the politics of those who were opting for some imagined notion of a ‘transition’ more than anything else.

Their arguments, now well buried, rested on the premise, that a compromise or deal — depending on which political party they belonged to — with the military and with President General Pervez Musharraf was a wise choice under the circumstances. These writers argued that Pakistan was going through unsettled times, as always seems to be the case, and that political actors needed to play a careful and cautious role. They argued against ‘revolutions’, ‘adventurism’ and folly of this kind.

Many of these writers even actively defended the National Reconciliation Ordinance, because they supported a particular political party. Corruption was condoned or overlooked on the grounds that Ms Bhutto was popular and had vast support. All principles were set aside as long as a deal could be justified between General Musharraf and Ms Bhutto. This was the core of the so-called ‘transition’ argument.

The deal/transition line, which was merely a façade for collaboration, collapsed even without any sort of adventurism, with Ms Bhutto continuing to play according to the rules set by the general. The transition argument collapsed precisely because it was built on nonsensical and opportunist foundations.

Those pushing the transition line had little interest in learning from history, even of events of very recent years. The assumption that a compromising and deal-making popular political leader would be allowed to work independently of a military president (whether retired or in uniform) had no basis whatsoever other than wishful thinking.

Recent events from the time of Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo and Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali should have been enough to suggest that a military man can only work with a ‘rubberstamp’ prime minister and not with an ambitious and independent political actor who sees a long career in politics ahead of her. The hope that civilian politicians would be subordinate partners of the general and his military should have given way to the realisation by now that the politicians will merely be subordinates.

The fact that Ms Bhutto wanted to collaborate with Gen Musharraf was completely consistent with the way politics is done in Pakistan, where the goal is simply to come to power through whatever means possible and given even half an opportunity.

Throughout March to September, when an active anti-Musharraf lawyers’ popular movement was underway, Ms Bhutto sat on the sidelines. Worse still, when the lawyers and the media were fighting for basic human and democratic rights, the leader of Pakistan’s most popular political party was cutting deals with a general in uniform to save her fortune and her future. The anti-democratic role that the Pakistan People’s Party and Ms Bhutto, in particular, have played all this year, must be recorded for posterity. The path to transition was paved with gold.

Since 1988, the first genuine moment for the move towards democracy came in the summer of this year. While a number of individuals and groups were involved in the movement that took place, because of the absence of political parties, in particular the PPP, the movement remained a popular protest, not a political one. A lawyers’ movement, or that of so-called ‘civil society’, will remain a popular protest or movement unless political parties take the lead.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of politics in Pakistan in recent months has been the role that political parties have played. Sadly, even after Nov 3, for the most part they continue to sit on the sidelines. While compromise and opportunism have dictated their political strategy, they have lost the will to strike.

Ms Bhutto has been offered yet another opportunity to make a difference. Despite her opportunism and anti-democratic stance, she has emerged as the face of possibility in the new Pakistani political setup. She is already sounding prime ministerial, with the UK foreign secretary talking to her as are other foreign officials.

Ms Bhutto is making the right noises at her press conferences, talking more about the damage that could be done to Pakistan if emergency stays indefinitely. She has also condemned President General Musharraf, but still in a ‘softly, softly’ manner. It is very apparent from Ms Bhutto’s statements that she is still playing the waiting game, hoping that something will give, without her having to make a decision. Within the next few days, it will become very clear how she and her party play their cards.

There is no doubt that more than Pakistan, it is Gen Musharraf who is facing his severest crisis. Every fair-minded observer is aware, that the emergency was imposed simply to save his skin — and uniform — before the Supreme Court issued its decision on whether he could — even after having done so — run for the office of president.

A week into the emergency/martial law, Gen Musharraf is facing pressure not just from the lawyers in Pakistan, but also from foreign governments who have informed him of their displeasure about the turn of events. At this juncture, Musharraf needs all the support he can muster. Who better to turn to than Ms Benazir Bhutto?

There is a possibility that Ms Bhutto will again be offered the greatest deal of her life to collaborate and save a crumbling military state. She could be the choice for a longish term (perhaps one year) interim caretaker prime minister with a uniform-less President Musharraf. This arrangement would suit both of them supremely. President Musharraf fulfils many of his promises and lives to fight many years, while Ms Bhutto makes her comeback in Pakistan’s politics.

She, too, will justify her decision just as General Musharraf did one week ago, all for the national good, to save the nation. Little does she realise that such an arrangement will not work. A hard-headed president and an equally hard-headed prime minister, both dependent on each other, rather than on any semblance of popular support, are unlikely to be able to work together for long, yet that is probably the last thing on the minds of either at the moment.

For Ms Bhutto though, there is another alternative which can really make her the champion of democracy in Pakistan, and not just the next interim caretaker prime minister. At this critical juncture, she can side with the popular struggle against President General Pervez Musharraf and military rule and lead Pakistan to a more meaningful form of democracy than it has seen in the past, and transform whatever transition Pakistan seems to be undergoing at the moment.

If she has anything to learn from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto — and sadly, she has learnt little — it is to know when to serve a general and when to break free from his apron strings and to make one’s own destiny. One will not have to wait long to know what choice she makes.

THE conventional way to win cases is by engaging competent lawyers who prepare their briefs, and the matter is heard before an independent court. But if you are America’s friend heading an army, there is another way. Boot out the Constitution, remove and arrest judges and substitute them with ‘judges’ who first swear loyalty to you.

Article 6 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that, “any person who abrogates, or attempts to or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means would be guilty of high treason”. So too would “any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason” (Article 6 (2) of the Constitution).

The Nov 3 Proclamation of Emergency stipulates that the Constitution of Pakistan ‘shall remain in abeyance’. There is not a single provision in the Constitution which permits this. On the contrary, the Constitution mandates that “obedience to the Constitution is inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and all other persons for the time being within Pakistan (Article 5)”, which includes all foreigners in Pakistan.

The president, prime minister, Chief Justice of Pakistan and the provinces, judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, federal and provincial ministers, senators, members of the national and provincial assemblies, governors and chief ministers of the provinces, have sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.

All members of the armed forces “swear that I will bear true faith to and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution”. The allegiance is not to an individual or to the army chief. Members of the armed forces further swear not to engage ‘in any political activities’.

By keeping the Constitution in abeyance, aiding and abetting to do so, or taking another oath in derogation of the one already taken under the Constitution violates the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. The PCO, however, requires all judges to take a new oath of office (Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007) and accept the Proclamation of Emergency and the PCO. Those taking this oath break the one taken earlier under the Constitution. The text of oaths of the highest functionaries also required them to preserve Pakistan’s Islamic ideology.

Emergency has been proclaimed by the army chief, but the Constitution does not give the army chief such power. The emergency envisaged under the Constitution is under certain, very special circumstances, and can be imposed only by the president acting on the advice of the cabinet/prime minister. The stated special circumstances, too, do not exist.The reasons cited in the Proclamation of Emergency include “judiciary is working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature”, interference by “the judiciary in government policy”, “interference in executive functions”, “humiliating treatment meted to government officials”. None of these so called grounds permit the imposition of emergency. The Proclamation of Emergency, therefore, clearly contravenes the Constitution.

All lawyers except those on the gravy train of the public exchequer are protesting. The government acknowledges that in the two largest cities of Pakistan alone it has arrested 500 lawyers of which 344 have been arrested in Lahore, although according to the BBC, 3,000 lawyers have been arrested. The police barged into courts premises, lobbed teargas shells and beat peacefully protesting lawyers with lathis. Never before in the history of the world have so many lawyers been arrested. Not in Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain or Saddam’s Iraq. Another record to be displayed in the camp office next to the one earned for making Pakistan the ‘most dangerous place in the world’.

Musharraf after acknowledging his failure — “there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks”— thinks the solution lies in arresting all lawyers and judges who do not grovel before him. Similarly, if the resources of the state are spent on arresting and imprisoning members of the Human Rights Commission and members of civil society the terrorist would vanish. And he has also embarked on muzzling the media. Does this stand to reason? So much effort and resources would have been better expended in detecting and apprehending terrorists instead.

Each one of the lawyers that were arrested stood against religious extremism and terrorism; Zahid Ebrahim, who graduated from America’s prestigious Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, father of six-year-old Khadija and four-year-old Fatima, and Ishrat Alavi who did his law from S.M. Law College, father of three-year-old Kamil and 10-month-old Sana. But, on the very same day the government tells us that it has freed “25 militants in exchange for the release of 213 army personnel”.

The following day when the entire security apparatus of the state was hounding judges, lawyers, journalists and members of liberal society, Madyan, a town in Swat, fell to the extremists “after security forces surrendered without firing a shot”. What is the moral of the story? What is the lesson to be learnt?

Highly educated men and women have been arrested. The future of Pakistan lies in a state of arrested development. A phone call from London informed me about the imposition of emergency in Pakistan as all private and international news channels had been blocked. The History Channel, however, was running, showing a programme on Hitler.

The Constitution is the life of a nation. Aristotle writing over 2,300 years ago knew that ‘Living for the Constitution is salvation’. Anyone trampling the Constitution tramples on our rights and wants his point of view to prevail by force. When the government cuts off the tongue of the media, arrests judges, bludgeons and incarcerates peaceful citizens it too acts like a terrorist.

Standing up for the truth and the Constitution is likely to get one arrested. But when your little Fatima or Sana come to question why we live in a police state you will not lower your gaze.