Benazir Bhutto’s byzantine logic

WHAT do Pervez Musharraf, Chaudhry Shujaat, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Benazir Bhutto have in common? Well, for starters, all of them notionally support an ‘independent judiciary’ but say this has nothing to do with the reinstatement of pre-PCO judges.

This byzantine logic is inexplicable to anyone apart from Musharraf, his stooges and his loyal ‘opposition’. One can at least admire those amongst them who once they are bought stay bought. The waffling and false pretences of others are just irritating.

Nawaz Sharif has performed a great service by exposing Ms Bhutto’s duplicity. When the joint ARD-APDM committee was formed to decide upon a Charter of Demands, it was clearly stated that the fulfilment of the demands were a precondition to participating in the elections.

After reaching agreement on 13 points in the Charter, Ms Bhutto stubbornly refused to agree to call for the restoration of the judiciary. Moreover, by refusing to set a specific deadline for compliance with the demands, she made it clear that she will participate in the elections whether or not the demands are met. As a result, now even the PML-N has been forced to call off its boycott although it is at least still insisting on the reinstatement of judges.

Ms Bhutto is remarkably laissez-faire about securing the restoration of independent judges considering that her father was executed by compliant judges on the instructions of a military dictator. In a classic example of missing the woods for the trees, she asks, “What has the judiciary ever done for us?”

Assuming they’ve done nothing at all, that is the very reason why she should be at the forefront of the movement for the reinstatement of independent judges. Independent judges may be a thorn in your side when you are in power, but they can be lifesavers when you are in opposition.

And in fact, contrary to what Ms Bhutto would have you believe, scores of independent judges in our superior courts have given great sacrifices to uphold the rule of law in Pakistan. Unfortunately, supposedly democratic politicians failed, to their own detriment, to support them.

Zulfikar Bhutto realised that too late. He introduced the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to curtail the judiciary’s independence. One of its victims was Justice Safdar Shah who was prematurely retired as the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court.

But independent judges don’t hold grudges. When later appointed to the Supreme Court by General Zia, he was one of three dissenters (along with justices Dorab Patel and Mohammad Haleem) from the decision to hang Bhutto. For this inexplicable act of courage, Zia orchestrated his ouster from the Supreme Court.

The bench in Bhutto’s case was split four to three. As Ghazala Minallah, Justice Safdar Shah’s daughter, points out, if there had been one more independent judge on the bench, Pakistan’s history might have been different. In fact, in 1977 there were still several independent judges in the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Yaqub Ali was one of them. As Benazir Bhutto herself pointed out in her article titled ‘Accountability of Foreign Aid to Pakistani Military’ (InformPress.com, April 23, 2007), his independence caused General Zia to replace him — through a martial law order — with Chief Justice Anwar-ul-Haq, who was more than happy to confirm Bhutto’s death sentence.

In her article Ms Bhutto wrote: “Despite Islam’s emphasis on Adal-o-Insaf (equity and justice), justice has systematically been undermined by military rule.” She lists the various chief justices who were removed by martial law orders and adds, “In between, the dictators relied on the likes of controversial judges whose judgments were ridiculed the world over.” Now she calls a different tune and insists that the independence of the judiciary is not about individuals.

There were two more independent judges who formed part of the original nine-member Supreme Court bench hearing Zulfikar Bhutto’s case: Justice Wahiduddin Ahmed (father of Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed) and Justice Qaiser Khan. Unfortunately, the proceedings were protracted until the latter retired and the former became unable to sit on the bench due to ill health. As a result, a probable 5-4 decision in favour of Bhutto was transformed into a 4-3 decision against him. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah (one of the four who voted against Bhutto) later admitted that their decision was prompted by the pressure of the military establishment.

Ms Bhutto claims that her stance regarding the judiciary is about principles and not personalities. So, in other words, when a military dictator sacks nearly half of your superior court judges because they are seen as insufficiently cooperative, it is really about individuals and not principles?

What would it take for Ms Bhutto to call for a reversal — when the regime actually burns down the Supreme Court and High Court buildings?

It’s the individual judges who make up a court, not a few slabs of marble on Constitution Avenue. The independence of the judiciary is established by appointing independent-minded judges, respecting their decisions and protecting their tenures. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the US Supreme Court pointed out, “Constitutions and statutes don’t protect judicial independence, people do.”

Prominent among those who upheld Zulfikar Bhutto’s death sentence was Justice Malik Mohammad Akram. His son proved to be the very model of filial piety.

He is our redoubtable attorney general, Mr Malik Mohammad Qayyum. As a judge of the Lahore High Court, Qayyum continued with family tradition and sentenced Benazir Bhutto to five-years’ imprisonment after receiving appropriate telephonic instructions from government ministers. Later, when tape recordings of these telephonic conversations surfaced, a Supreme Court bench (that included, incidentally, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry) set aside the conviction and eventually forced Qayyum to resign in disgrace.

Now Malik Qayyum is resurrected as the nation’s premier law officer. The superior courts have been swept clean of uncooperative judges. And still Benazir Bhutto is prepared to dialogue with the establishment and go along with their well-laid election plans (albeit with a show of reluctance).

Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s stand is understandable. He will be allowed to win in the Frontier. But Bhutto is deluded if she thinks she will be accorded the same treatment. The Chaudhries will never share Punjab with the PPP and the PML-F and MQM shall take the lion’s share in Sindh.

It shall be the newly transferred underlings of the PCO judges that shall announce the polling results and it will be PCO judges who entertain any challenges to the outcome. And for all the hyperbole of taking to the streets if elections are rigged, why would Benazir do so when the sword of the National Reconciliation Ordinance is still hanging in a Supreme Court of PCO judges?

The time to take to the streets is now, not when a farcical electoral exercise stamps a fresh seal of legitimacy on Musharraf’s regime.

The writer is a barrister practising in Karachi.

In the name of elections

THERE seems to be a consensus about the farcical nature of the elections to be held in Pakistan on Jan 8, 2008. There are many who believe these elections to be hardly anything more than a meaningless exercise in mass voting.

They include the organisers of the elections themselves, namely the caretaker government and the Election Commission of Pakistan, along with President Musharraf, the top brass and the civil bureaucracy. Interestingly, of the same belief are the Bush administration abroad and political leaders ranging from Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to Imran Khan at home.

If so, why should elections be taken so seriously, by those in government and others in opposition? The answer lies in the fact that there is no other way for Musharraf to stay on in power under a civilian framework, especially after shedding his uniform. Similarly, there is no other option for political leaders to get rid of him except through entering the system via the ballot.

Politicians do not have the power to launch a coup against a general, who retired only a few days ago and who is perceived to be enjoying the support of the new COAS. Whether they should participate in elections or not has been the politicians’ dilemma. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

President Musharraf’s strategy seems to follow three major steps: first, his presidency should be confirmed through a vote of confidence in the next parliament, which makes it imperative for him to get a majority for the ‘king’s parties’. But, secondly, the elections should have a semblance of legitimacy in order to make the next legislature function smoothly and avoid what increasingly looks like a mass movement in the making.

Thirdly, he must regain the confidence of his supporters abroad, especially the Bush administration, as also the diplomatic community in general. Currently his standing in the world at large as well as within the country is at the lowest point. Elections are expected to boost his image.

But elections can go either way. The grim prospects of losing the election in favour of one or the other of the two political juggernauts represented by the PPP and PML-N would almost certainly put Musharraf’s presidency in jeopardy.

That leads to the need for making the PML-Q victorious one way or the other. Therefore, the election strategy is required to be carefully charted out so as to keep the president’s position invulnerable under a civilian set-up.

The political opposition was never so confused and so disunited. Currently, political parties fall in three categories. Some aligned themselves with the government in the recent past, overtly or covertly, such as the JUI as part of the MMA and the MQM. These parties are still not convinced that the time has come for Musharraf to go. They have rendered a great service to the latter by keeping their political workers off the street and enjoying the crumbs of power as a quid pro quo. For them, elections are welcome.

The second category includes the PPP from the opposition. Musharraf needed the support of those in Washington who supported the idea of expanding his power base by bringing Benazir on board. The more his popularity shrank, the more he became dependent on external input. Benazir Bhutto gave clear signals that she was ready to be convinced of the inevitability of participation in elections.

The MRD’s boycott of elections held under Ziaul Haq was later regretted by the parties which opted out. It gave room to the Junejo government to move in. The 1985 syndrome amply explains the hesitation of many to boycott the 2008 elections. They see the coming elections as immoral and illegal. But they also see darkness after the boycott, hence the willingness of some of them to jump into the fray. This is, then, the third category of politicians.

The elections in January will most likely not be issue-based in character. There will be election manifestos of political parties, big and small. There will be promises to bring about changes in policy, to make it more Islamic or more distributive in nature. But the reality is that elections will not bring up issues, which usually dominate campaigns in the mature democracies.

This is because even prior to approaching the voting public, the daunting prospect of un-free and unfair elections are haunting the political community. One raises issues to appeal to voters so as to win a seat for the national or a provincial assembly. If one is never sure of transparency in the process of conversion of votes into seats, one needs to go, first, for ensuring this and only secondly for eliciting votes.

With the kind of caretaker governments in place at the national and provincial levels and the Election Commission of Pakistan being what it is, cynicism about predetermined results is rampant. This is somewhat along the lines of the 2002 referendum and general elections, and the 2005 local bodies polls, when the steamroller of the official machinery produced results contrary to the expectations of candidates and voters.

That is why the real issues relate to the sanctity of the ballot itself, removal of nazims who are perceived to be the president’s men and putting an end to the role of intelligence agencies.

The whole issue of participating in, or boycotting, the elections is rooted in the way the Musharraf government has dabbled in extra-constitutional measures. These moves stand out as black events in Pakistan’s history. Starting with the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on March 9, the president proceeded to put the whole constitutional edifice of the state in jeopardy.

A whole series of steps that were taken moved in a direction that went against free and fair elections. This included delaying, tampering with and subverting the process of electioneering, starting from the appointment of Senate chairman Soomro as caretaker prime minister down to beating, arresting and harassing lawyers, media people and students as well as non-PCO judges. The political atmosphere has been vitiated beyond recognition.

Ironically, civil society is active but the political community is not. The civil society currently led by lawyers and media persons is clear about its goals and the means to achieve those goals. The political community is far from clear. It is confused as well as divided.

But civil society is powerless inasmuch as it lacks the means of bringing about the desired legal and constitutional changes. Similarly, the political community is clueless, largely because it is immobilised. There is hardly any interaction between leaders and workers, between party cadres across different political entities, between the politicians and vote deliverers and between the caretakers and contestants out in the field. The proverbial five blind men are groping in the dark to understand the true nature of the current political system.

Among the Musharraf government’s few successes, one can count the ways he factionalised the political parties, destroyed the moral standing of the whole gamut of political leadership on the issue of corruption and divided the political opposition. Broadly, the military-backed ruling elite continues to swear by the Constitution and democracy, often derailing the judicial, constitutional and electoral processes on the way.

All this means that the election process continues to operate on the margins of the political system. Its relevance is procedural not substantive, as a source of constitutional legitimacy for the ongoing ruling set-up, not as a channel for facilitating public participation in the business of the state. The January 2008 elections may not change the status quo, represented by President Musharraf and his increasingly authoritarian rule. Democracy remains as elusive as ever.

The search for a leader

POLITICALLY and constitutionally Pakistan is passing through a critical phase. Although Senate Chairman Mohammadmian Soomro is now an acting prime minister, it is a stopgap arrangement. The coming general elections will decide who is to be our new head of the government. Some people believe that General Pervez Musharraf would love to occupy both the top posts though he knows it is not possible.

If we are to believe an observer, there is an acute shortage of leaders to meet the special requirements of Pakistan. He complains that since the elections are not producing talented people, even the best of our ministers are a poor lot. Of course, we don’t deserve a PM who is too mediocre.

So how do we find someone to fill the vacancy at the top? There should be a foolproof method for it.

Let us say (as suggested by a self-styled expert who believes our method to manufacture leaders is faulty) we send someone abroad to be specially trained for the purpose. That could be done, but the trouble is that by the time he comes back there’ll be someone else sitting in the PM’s chair.

We change our loyalties too rapidly. There is also the possibility that he may decide to settle in the United States and refuse to come back. This is a wish common to most Pakistanis.

I have been giving considerable thought to the matter, having nothing better to do. My friends advise me to adopt some time-consuming hobby which will keep me busy and prevent me from putting forth silly ideas, but I am determined to devote most of my time to national affairs.

Since everybody else is doing something without much thinking, I want to be one of those few who go on thinking without doing anything.

There should be someone who devotes his brains to the good of the country. As my father used to say when I didn’t show enough interest in my studies, “An idle man’s brain is the devil’s workshop.”

This business of foreign training is not such a big deal. Whoever is selected for the job and is then groomed and refined in a diplomatic school in London or Washington, will be good for nothing else afterwards and will be fit only for the prime minister’s office.

Ministers have to be rotated frequently; if one day they are in charge of foreign affairs or education the next day they should be able to handle agriculture or family planning, or act as minister-in-waiting for a visiting head of state.

A whole book can be written on the subject of the right minister for the right job. I have all the material and only need someone to do the writing part. At the moment, every prospective minister is confident that he is made for a higher role.

They all want the most important slots. For instance, if Maulana Samiul Haq were to be made a minister, one may assume, he would be happy only if he gets the portfolio of religious affairs. Not at all. He will want finance and economic affairs, or even the foreign affairs ministry. It’s like that.

And somehow nobody wants Science & technology, or culture, sports and tourism. In his autobiography, Qudratullah Shahab relates about his days with Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad that the education portfolio used to be the least coveted.

Once it was found to everyone’s horror that in the new cabinet sworn-in a few moments ago, education had been left out altogether.

The GG ordered Mr Shahab (who was his secretary) to run outside and catch any straggler who had not yet left the premises so that the additional charge of education could be foisted on him.

Everybody had gone except a doddering old East Pakistani who had been detained by a severe bout of asthma. So he was hauled back and saddled with the portfolio.

And there is the story of my friend Sakhi Jan Khan which illustrates a different case from a different angle.

As an MPA during One Unit government, he was invited to be sworn in as deputy minister by Governor Nawab of Kalabagh. At the Governor’s House I asked him what portfolio he was getting. He said, rather ruefully, “Finance.”

“Why this show of disappointment?” I asked. “Did you want something else”? His reply was, “Yara Ji, I would have preferred Communications & Works in which I have experience. You see, I was a stores clerk in the Frontier PWD for eight years.” And thus the West Pakistan Cabinet was deprived of a technocrat politician who could have brought about marvellous changes in the provincial PWD. And just because those at the helm have a tendency to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Actually it is the fault of the prime minister and the chief ministers. They believe that they can do what they like with members of their cabinet. They are right of course, but why not let the poor blighters feel for a change that they have some say in the government?

Look at what Mr Ghulam Hyder Wyne once did as chief minister of Punjab. He directed a chap on his personal staff to quietly go around and monitor the attendance of the ministers and see who comes to office and who plays truant.

What a pity! A man spends millions of rupees to buy his votes to get elected. You consider him good enough to be on the cabinet and appoint him minister — a position of great trust and much privilege.

He flies a flag on his car and declares schools and hospitals open. And you depute your junior employee to g out and see whether he is attending office or not.

And then you want a good minister or prime minister and leader of the House in the legislative assembly.

How can you succeed in that when circumstances are too disappointing?

Swat: mission accomplished? By Adil Zareef

THE ISPR spokesman has declared all districts and tehsils of Swat cleared of militants. So, is everything hunky dory and back to normal as the displaced persons return to their homes — and peace prevails? Has the operation Swat codenamed Rah-i-Haq been “mission accomplished” or is this just another ruse — a lull before the storm — an impending turmoil about to explode in the near future?

The phrase “mission accomplished” was used by President George Bush aboard a US aircraft carrier referring to Iraq in 2003, but the insurgency never ceased, rather it has intensified ever since.

Hopefully this euphoria is not misplaced on the part of the Pakistan military.

The rumour mills have already started to work overtime in the absence of verifiable sources other than the military handouts.

The fight against terrorism was cited as a reason to impose emergency but it may not have had the desired effect since an independent media and civil society contribute to keeping an eye on the militants’ activities. While the military may have alienated even liberal elements of society through the measures following the emergency, its intelligence did not appear to be on the mark.

This is why perhaps the notorious training camp like Manja Khwar was spared the rockets and instead the peaceful Kala Kaley village was targeted in Kabal.

In the perception of the locals, the militants were given safe passage by the authorities into the deep enclave of Gatt Peuchaar from the Najia post as an escape route to Dir, Bajaur district. Some locals also allege that militancy will once again be reactivated by the same elements that ‘groomed and assembled’ them prior to their Swat conflict to get the media attention and to raise alarm bells in western capitals of the ‘impending threat of a takeover by Islamic militants’, as President Pervez Musharraf defends his draconian emergency measures.

According to Khadim Hussain, a social analyst, “In some parts naturally there is initial excitement due to the restoration of normality but largely there is growing public doubt and resentment — the people think the army has come to dislodge them just like the helpless Baloch in the name of ‘national security’. Despite tall claims the rural mountains are still under the Taliban.

Worse, many residents report the training camps are still operational in Swat. As for now, Swat has been officially ‘conquered’ by the military!”

According to a prominent HR activist from Swat, “The military cannot be trusted to root out extremist elements as these were permitted to sneak to safe havens, while the ordinary civilians became soft targets. Nobody knows the whereabouts of Mullah Fazlullah and his close associates.

“A well known figure at the ‘tootano market’ was the ex- interior minister’s point man in the whole operation. The terrorists took refuge with the local administration before the army operation.

“What is needed is targeted action against the ‘imported’ militants who have taken cover and were neither killed nor arrested as claimed by the officials. The people have yet to see those arrested or killed militants.”

As these theories are doing the rounds, there is a humanitarian catastrophe emerging in all districts and tehsils, except Mingora, as no relief agencies have been given access to the conflict zones and there are serious health, food and shelter problems that need to be addressed on an emergency basis. The role of the traditional elites, political leaders, NGOs and the so called civil society from Swat has been abysmal in the entire affair as they watched from the sidelines as their land was being devoured.

Posterity will judge their silence and their apparent appeasement when things were sliding towards anarchy.

The most credible analysis of the current turmoil goes like this: “Past and current practices of Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies indicate that they must have concluded earlier that Pakistan would yet again need a ‘working relationship’ with the Taliban to pursue its interests in Afghanistan and to compete with Indian and Iranian goals in the region.

“If this analysis is accurate, then this also explains why Maulana Fazlur Rahman (leader of one of two factions of the Deobandist Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam or JUI) is being friendly again towards the Musharraf regime.

“The new attitude may be the result of guarantees that the NWFP will remain under his suzerainty and might explain why he is not challenging Musharraf openly even when all other major political forces are gunning for the president.” —Hassan Abbas in Terrorism Monitor, Nov 26, 2007.

Tailpiece: “The Taliban are a convenient ATM card for the Pakistan Army. First it was the Afghan jihad. After 9/11 the ATM machine was pulled from Afghanistan into the tribal belt and now it is in the settled districts.

When ever the Pakistan Army needs dollars it just pushes in the Taliban or Al Qaeda ATM Card and the dollars just start rolling in…. . .” — Abdul Hayee Kakar, BBC Urdu service Peshawar.